Patna High Court
Jailal MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the Special Judge’s order and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, four members of the Mahto family, were charged under multiple provisions of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for alleged caste‑based assault and harassment on 15 July 2024. Their application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Special Judge on 14 August 2024. On appeal, they contended that they have clean antecedents, the allegations are vague, the alleged offences occurred inside the informant’s house and were not in public view, and there is no injury report for the informant’s mother. The Special Public Prosecutor and the informant’s counsel could not refute these points. The Patna High Court, after considering the submissions, set aside the Special Judge’s order, allowed the appeal, and directed that the appellants be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000 each with two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act, 1989 in view of the alleged facts.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a cognizable offence sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the Special Judge’s order rejecting anticipatory bail was legally erroneous.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 109, 115(2), 118, 126, 303(2), 3(5), 351, 352, 76
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- bail jurisdiction
- criminal appeal
- scheduled castes
- scheduled tribes
- injury report
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5237 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-395 Year-2024 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Jailal Mahto Son of Late Devki Mahto Resident of Village - Bagaha,Ward
No.1, Police Station - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran
2. Ragho Mahto Son of Giduni Mahto Resident of Village - Bagaha,Ward
No.1, Police Station - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran
3. Rajkumar @ Rajkumar Mahto Son of Ragho Mahto Resident of Village -
Bagaha,Ward No.1, Police Station - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran
4. Hemraj @ Hemraj Mahto Son of Ragho Mahto Resident of Village -
Bagaha,Ward No.1, Police Station - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mohan Paswan Son of Chandesh Paswan Resident of Village - Bagaha,Ward
No.1, Police Station - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1
Mr.Abhishek Kumar
Ms.Rashmi Jha
Mr.Sharad Kumar Verma
Mr.Sagar Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 27-04-2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The appellants have challenged the order dated
14.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Harsidhi P. S.
Case No.395 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections
126, 115(2), 118, 109, 76, 303(2), 351, 352 and 3(5) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5237 of 2024(4) dt.27-04-2026
2/4
B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby
their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that accused persons on
15.07.2024 at 8.00 P.M. came and Ragho Mahto (appellant
no.2) abused him by taking caste name and gave orders to kill
on which Shivnath assaulted by farsa causing injury on head
while Jailal Mahto (appellant no.1) assaulted his mother Rina
Devi and tore her clothes and abused by taking caste name
while Hemraj snatched her mangalsutra and Raj Kumar
assaulted by lathi, on alarm neighbours gathered and pacified
the issue.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no
reason for the occurrence is alleged. It is also submitted that
even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting,
then the entire occurrence is alleged to have taken place at the
house of the informant and thus was not in public view. It is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5237 of 2024(4) dt.27-04-2026
3/4
next submitted that Shivnath is alleged to have assaulted the
informant by farsa causing injury on head, but then Shivnath is
not an appellant in the instant appeal and as far as appellants are
concerned, the allegations against them is general and omnibus
in nature. It is submitted that appellant no.2 has been implicated
in the instant case with an allegation that based on his orders the
occurrence took place and allegation against Jailal is of abusing
the mother of the informant by taking caste name, but then the
same is not in public view and there is no injury report of the
mother of the informant on record and as far as Hemraj is
concerned, the allegation against him and Raj Kumar is
ornamental in nature. It is also submitted that if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted, the appellants will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their
innocence.
5. The learned Special P.P. as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
appeal, but then, are not in a position to rebut the submission of
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that
injury report of mother of the informant is not on record and
allegation of abuse is not within public view and allegation of
snatching mangalsutra and giving orders and assaulting by lathi
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5237 of 2024(4) dt.27-04-2026
4/4
is ornamental.
6. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 14.08.2024 is set-aside.
7. The appeal stands allowed.
8. The appellants, above-named, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of eight weeks, are directed to be released on bail on
their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, East
Champaran at Motihari in connection with Harsidhi P. S. Case
No.395 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…