Patna High Court
Raushan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not warranted; the appeal was dismissed.
Summary
The appellant, Raushan Kumar, was charged with murder under IPC section 302 and an offence under section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. He applied for anticipatory bail under section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which was denied by the Special Judge. The appellant argued that he had a clean record and was falsely implicated, contending that the informant was not an eye‑witness and that the FIR did not explain how the informant identified him. The State countered that the death of the informant’s father was undisputed, that investigation revealed a prior dispute and that post‑mortem findings supported the assault allegation. The Patna High Court, after considering the submissions, declined to extend anticipatory bail and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act in a case involving murder and a scheduled‑caste atrocity allegation.
- Whether the appellant’s claim of false implication and lack of eye‑witness testimony suffices to merit anticipatory bail.
- Whether the stage of investigation and post‑mortem findings preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- murder
- false implication
- bail refusal
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5536 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-350 Year-2024 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Raushan Kumar S/o Tarkeshwar Ray R/o vill - Supaul Tariya, P.S. - Mahua,
Distt.- Vaishali
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Indrajit Manjhi S/o Siyaram Manjhi R/o vill - Supaul Tariya, P.O. - Rusulpur
Fatha, P.S. - Mahua, Distt.- Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 28-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Mr. Sadanand Paswan.
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 24.09.2024 in A.B.P. No. 1924 of 2024 passed by
the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act,
Vaishali in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 350 of 2024
registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5536 of 2024(6) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that his father on 14.05.2024 had gone to Gopalpur for
working as a labourer and when he was returning home, the
appellant intercepted him near Supaul Taraiya and assaulted him
leading to his death and took out Rs. 10,000/- from his pocket.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence nor the FIR
discloses that on what basis the informant came to know that it
was appellant who committed the occurrence of assault leading
to death.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the appeal
and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is
that father of the informant died. It is fairly submitted that the
FIR does not disclose that on what basis, the informant came to
know about the occurrence, but then it is submitted that the
same is an aspect of investigation. It is next submitted that
during the course of investigation also it transpired that
appellant had assaulted the deceased and an old dispute was
prevailing in between the two. It is further submitted that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5536 of 2024(6) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
postmortem of the dead body was conducted and the cause of
death, as opined by the doctor, is recorded as due to loss of
blood, on account of assault and acid attack. It is also submitted
that investigation in the case is continuing.
6. Considering the submissions made by the
learned Special PP for the State, the Court is not inclined to
extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant.
7. Accordingly the appeal stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…