Patna High Court
Anant SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants, setting aside the Special Court’s refusal.
Summary
The appellants, Anant Sah and his son Manish Kumar, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act for alleged assault on a minor named Aman. They applied for anticipatory bail, but the Special Court refused, prompting an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The appellants argued that notice was validly served to the father of the second respondent, who chose not to appear, and that the injury report showed only a single head injury, with no specific allegation against them, indicating false implication. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The Patna High Court, after considering the submissions and the injury report, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Sections 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., set aside the lower court’s order, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The validity of the notice served to the father of the second respondent for the purpose of anticipatory bail proceedings.
- Whether the allegations and injury report justify denial of anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellants can be granted anticipatory bail despite the seriousness of the offences alleged.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s), 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste atrocities
- false implication
- injury report
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5144 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2025 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Anant Sah S/O Tulshi Sah Resident of Village- Budhua, Police Station-
Akorhigola, District- Rohtas
2. Manish Kumar @ Manish Kumar Gupta S/O Anant Sah Resident of Village-
Budhua, Police Station- Akorhigola, District- Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajesh Kumar S/O Virendra Paswan R/O Vill.- Mahuari, P.S.- Akorhigola,
Dist.- Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 20-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Court,
SC/ST Act, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Akorhigola
P.S. Case No. 357 of 2025 registered under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 as well as
Sections 3(i)(r)(s), 3(i)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5144 of 2025(4) dt.20-04-2026
2/4
appellants submits that notice was received by the father of the
respondent no. 2.
4. Since the notice has been received by the father of
the respondent no. 2, hence, the same is deemed to be validly
served.
5. It is submitted that despite receiving the notice, the
respondent no. 2 chooses not to appear and contest the case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that his son, namely, Aman along with Abhishek on
02.09.2025 in between 01:00-02:00 a.m. had gone to participate
in a pooja where an altercation took place. Further, while
returning they were intercepted by ten named accused persons
and Shambhu abused by taking caste name and assaulted Aman
by rod causing injury on head on account of which he fell,
thereafter, appellants along with Gaina, Manish and Vikash kept
assaulting him. Further, also assaulted Abhishek who tried to
save Aman and even damaged the vehicle. It is next alleged that
video of the son of the informant lying in an injured condition is
with him and on receiving information, the informant came and
took his son to the clinic of Dr. Virendra.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5144 of 2025(4) dt.20-04-2026
3/4
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific
allegation of abusing Aman by taking caste name and assaulting
by rod causing injury on head is against Shambhu. It is next
submitted that though it is alleged that appellants along with
Gaina, Manish and Vikash also assaulted Aman and thereafter
assaulted Abhishek but then learned counsel submits that he has
copy of the injury report and from perusal of the same, it would
manifest that Aman suffered only one injury which has been
opined to be grievous which is on head. It is also submitted that
the said injury report has been shown to the learned Spl.P.P. and
the learned Spl.P.P. also fairly submits after perusing the injury
report that Aman suffered only one injury. It is submitted that
there is no specific allegation against the appellants of abusing
and allegation of assault is an exaggerated allegation. It is
further submitted that appellant no. 2 is a student and is son of
appellant no. 1. It is next submitted that it does not appear
probable that father and son together would have indulged in
such an occurrence. It is also submitted that this perhaps
explains why the respondent no. 2 despite receiving the notice
chooses not to appear and contest the case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5144 of 2025(4) dt.20-04-2026
4/4
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, let the appellants,
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid
case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…