Patna High Court
Shivsankar Pal @ Shiv Shankar Prasad @ Shiv Shankar PalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted at this stage and dismissed the appeal, allowing the appellant to re‑apply after charges are framed.
Summary
The appellant, Shivsankar Pal, was charged with offences under the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act arising from a disputed land sale in which the informant alleged fraud and caste-based assault. The appellant contended that the matter was essentially a civil dispute that had been given criminal colour and that he had a clean antecedent. The informant opposed anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations, though appearing civil, had acquired criminal seriousness and that a charge‑sheet had been filed. The trial court had refused bail, and the appellant appealed under Section 14A(2) of the CrPC. The High Court noted that charges had not yet been framed and, while acknowledging the appellant’s willingness to cooperate, declined to grant bail, directing that a fresh application could be made after charge‑framing. Consequently, the appeal against the bail refusal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the dispute appears civil but has been criminalised.
- Whether the absence of framed charges warrants bail under Section 14A(2) of the CrPC.
- Whether the allegations under the SC/ST Act and multiple IPC sections justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 14A(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 34, 341, 379(b), 420, 467, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2), 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail refusal
- civil dispute criminal colour
- land fraud
- caste harassment
- SC/ST Act
- IPC offences
- charge framing
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5178 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2024 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Shivsankar Pal @ Shiv Shankar Prasad @ Shiv Shankar Pal Son of Late
Parmeshwar Prasad Resident of village-Barharwa, P.S.- Turkauliya, District-
East Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sulekha Devi W/O Sri Ashok Ram Resident of village- Jaysinghpur,
Barharwa, P.S.- Turkauliya District- East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, S.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Prateek Tandon, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special P.P. and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for bail by order dated 20.11.2025 passed
by the learned Court of Special Judge, SC/ST, East Champaran,
Motihari, in connection with Turkauliya Case No.199 of 2024,
registered under Sections 341, 323, 308, 504, 420, 467, 379(B),
34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i) (r), 3(i)(s) 3(2) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5178 of 2025(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/4
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that appellant approached her for selling is 2 katha land
and the consideration fixed was Rs.7,00,000/-, the informant
paid an amount of Rs. 6,50,000 to appellant but appellant
registered only 3.38 decimal land and said that rest 10 Dhur land
shall be registered later and if appellant is not able to register 10
Dhur land then he will return the amount after deducting the
price of 3.38 decimal land, it is next alleged that on 15.03.2024,
when informant went on her purchased land, the family
members of the appellant came and objected saying that
informant has re-convey the land to the appellant, accordingly,
she went to the Registry Office to inquire when it transpired that
appellant got the land re-conveyed by another woman who
posed as informant, thus alleges that fraudulently the appellant
got the land re-convened and when the informant and her
husband confronted the appellant, they were abused by caste
name and assaulted.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from bare perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that a a civil
dispute has been given criminal colour. It is next submitted that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5178 of 2025(2) dt.24-04-2026
3/4
if what has been alleged by the informant that appellant got the
land re-conveyed through another woman who posed herself as
informant is a correct fact, in that event, the informant ought to
have approached a court of competent civil jurisdiction for
getting the said sale deed cancelled.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits
that no doubt prima facie it appears that the dispute is civil in
nature but then it has criminal colour. It is also submitted that
had the informant re-conveyed the land to the appellant then
obviously the appellant would have ensured that the earlier sale
deed executed in favour of the informant is cancelled but then
that is not the case of the appellant. It is also submitted that after
investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and the case has
been found true against the appellant.
6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant submits that if privilege of regular bail is
granted, the appellant will not abscond rather will cooperate in
the trial to prove his innocence.
7. On query of the Court that as to whether charges
have been framed against the appellant or not, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant fairly submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5178 of 2025(2) dt.24-04-2026
4/4
charges have not been framed.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the appellant on bail.
9. The regular bail application of the appellant is
rejected.
10. However, appellant would be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…