Patna High Court
Manju DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside, with anticipatory bail granted to the three appellants subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The appellants Manju Devi, Rohit Kumar and Abhishek Kumar appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a trial court order refusing anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged assault, caste‑based abuse and theft of a mangalsutra. They contended that the FIR was lodged 13 days after the incident, that there were no independent witnesses and that the allegations were exaggerated and stemmed from a dispute over an irrigation pipe. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. The High Court, after considering the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of corroborative evidence, granted anticipatory bail to the three appellants subject to bond and surety conditions, set aside the lower court’s order, and allowed the appeal. The appeal of the fourth appellant, Brij Kishor Ray, was dismissed as withdrawn following his death.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act is justified in view of the alleged facts.
- Whether a delay of more than 13 days in filing the FIR vitiates the prosecution.
- Whether the allegations constitute cognizable offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act warranting denial of bail.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted with conditions under Sections 438(2) and 482(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 188, 323, 341, 354, 379, 504, 506/34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A
- delay in FIR
- caste based violence
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5373 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2023 Thana- BHAGWANPUR HAT District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Manju Devi W/o- Late Vijay Singh R/o Village- Hasanpura, P.S-
Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan
2. Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Singh S/o- Late Manoj Singh R/o Village- Hasanpura,
P.S - Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan
3. Abhishek Kumar @ Nilu S/o-Vijay Singh R/o Village- Hasanpura, P.S-
Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan
4. Brij Kishor Ray S/o- Late Lalbahadur Ray R/o Village- Hasanpura, P.S-
Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bindu Devi Wife of Dwarika Manjhi R/o Village- Mahna, P.S- Bhagwanpur
Hat, District- Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 28-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, at the outset, seeks permission to withdraw the
appeal with respect to appellant no. 4, namely, Brij Kishor Ray,
who left for heavenly abode, during pendency of the same.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Accordingly, the appeal with respect to appellant
no. 4 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5373 of 2024(4) dt.28-04-2026
2/4
5. 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 04.10.2024 in A.B.P. No. 2235 of 2024 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
SC/ST (POA) Act, Siwan in connection with Bhagwanpur Hat
P.S. Case No. 49 of 2023 registered under Sections 188, 341,
323, 354, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well
as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants no. 1, 2 and 3 are persons
with clean antecedent and appellant no. 1 is a woman and the
informant alleges that on 22.01.2023, at 01:30 p.m., she was
irrigating her field and asked Rohit (appellant no. 2) not to take
the pipe on which Rohit abused the informant by taking caste
name and thereafter named accused persons came and Brij
Kishor Ray abused and said to cut the pipe and wheat on which
Abhishek (appellant no. 3) dashed her on the ground and Manju
(appellant no. 1) assaulted by fists and legs and Brij Kishor Ray
snatched her Mangalsutra.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5373 of 2024(4) dt.28-04-2026
3/4
appellants no. 1, 2 and 3 submits that appellants no. 1, 2 and 3
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 on
account of dispute with regard to a pipe, the occurrence is
alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted that even
allegation of abuse is ornamental in nature. It is also submitted
that on account of dispute relating to irrigating the field by pipe,
an altercation took place and the informant instituted the instant
FIR with exaggerated allegation. It is further submitted that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that the informant does not even remotely suggest that
the occurrence was witnessed by any independent witness. It is
next submitted that the date of occurrence is 22.01.2023 and the
FIR came to be instituted on 04.02.2023, i.e., after a delay of
more than 13 days of the occurrence which also casts as
aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants no. 1, 2 and 3
but then are not in a position to rebut the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants no. 1, 2
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5373 of 2024(4) dt.28-04-2026
4/4
and 3 that the FIR was instituted after a delay of more than 13
days.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants no. 1, 2 and 3, let
the appellants no. 1, 2 and 3, 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…