Patna High Court
Sakuntla Devi @ Shakunti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the lower court’s refusal and allowed anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Summary
Sakuntla Devi, a Scheduled Caste woman, appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case where she was charged under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly abusing and snatching the mobile of an Assistant Settlement Officer. She contended that the FIR did not explain why she visited the officer’s office, that the mobile was later returned, and that the allegations were false, arising from a land settlement dispute. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail but could not refute the appellant’s claim that the FIR lacked sufficient particulars. The High Court, considering these submissions, set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond and sureties under Section 438(2) of the CrPC. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC offences.
- Whether the FIR discloses sufficient material to justify denial of bail.
- Whether the alleged caste-based abuse and mobile snatching constitute an offence warranting denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 353, 379, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste atrocity
- false implication
- mobile snatching
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5554 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2024 Thana- CHANAN District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Sakuntla Devi @ Shakunti Devi W/o - Ramotar Yadav Village- Mahuliya Ps-
Chanan Dist- Lakhisarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sri Rajkamal, Assistant Settlement Officer cum Shivir Prabhari at Panchayat
Bhawan Kundar Kundar Ps- Chanan Dist- Lakhisarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Prasad
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 03-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Special P.P. Mr. Binay Krishna and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
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 14.11.2024 in A.B.A. No. 835/2024 passed by the
learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhisarai, in connection with Chanan P.S.
Case No.24/2024, registered under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506,
379 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5554 of 2024(5) dt.03-02-2026
2/4
(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has antecedent of one case and is a woman and the
informant alleges that he is Assistant Settlement Officer-cum-
Shiwir Prabhari at Panchayat Bhawan and the appellant came
and abused him by taking caste name and also snatched his
mobile.
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 perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, the same does not inspire
confidence for the reason that the FIR does not disclose that as
to why the appellant had come to the office of the informant. It
is next submitted that appellant had gone to the office of the
informant for getting a government land settled in her favour but
then a dispute arose and the appellant also instituted a case
against the informant being Chanan P.S. Case No.23 dated
06.03.2024. It is submitted that from perusal of the FIR
instituted by the appellant, it would manifest that she alleges
that on 05.03.2024, she had gone to the office for getting a land
settled in her favour on advise of Dularchand and Suchit, who
had informed her that an amount of Rs.20,000/- is required for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5554 of 2024(5) dt.03-02-2026
3/4
getting the job done but then the present informant acted
inappropriately with her. It is also submitted that no doubt the
informant had snatched the mobile of the informant but then the
same was returned to the police, as such, appellant had no
intention of committing theft rather out of anger, the act was
committed.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Binay
Krishna and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
appellant but then are not in a position to rebut the submission
of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that
the FIR instituted by the informant does not disclose that as to
why the appellant had come to the office of the informant and
that the mobile was returned to the police.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the informant
submits that police after investigation submitted charge sheet
but then cognizance till date has not been taken.
7. Considering the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant, the order impugned is set aside. Let the
appellant, above named, in the event of her arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5554 of 2024(5) dt.03-02-2026
4/4
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned court below where the case is pending in connection
with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…