Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable once cognizance is taken for offences under the SC/ST Act, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellant, Ranjeet Kumar Singh, was charged with offences under several IPC sections (323, 425, 426, 379, 506) and Sections 3 and 6 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The trial court had taken cognizance of the case and rejected his prayer for anticipatory bail. He appealed to the Patna High Court seeking to set aside that order. The State argued that once cognizance is taken for SC/ST Act offences, anticipatory bail is not maintainable, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar. The High Court accepted that precedent, held that the appellant’s bail application could not be entertained, and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the appellant remains in custody pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when cognizance has already been taken for offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 379, 425, 426, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3, 6
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cognizance
- SC/ST Act
- bail jurisprudence
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5599 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2023 Thana- BARHARIA District- Siwan
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar Singh Son of Kishore Singh R/o vill - Molnapur, P.S. - Siwan
Muffasil, Dist. - Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dr. Premchandra Baitha @ Prem Chandra Bhagat Son of Late Raushan
Baitha R/o vill - Mathurapur, P.S. - Barhariya, Distt. - Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Adesh Raj Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.PP
For Respondent No. 2 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. Despite valid service of notice, no body appears on
behalf of the informant/Respondent No. 2.
3. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order
dated 06.11.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, Siwan in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 323, 425, 426, 379 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 6 of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has
been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5599 of 2023(5) dt.19-03-2026
2/2
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that cognizance has already been taken by the learned
trial court.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
submits that the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the
appellant is not maintainable since cognizance has already been
taken by the learned trial court for the offences punishable under
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bachu Das
Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2014) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 471.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and
pronouncement of law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bachu Das (supra), appellant’s prayer for grant of
pre-arrest bail is rejected and this appeal stands dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…