Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Anjay Kumar @ Anjoy Kumar @ Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The High Court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant subject to conditions.

Summary

The appellant, Anjay Kumar, was charged under IPC sections 420, 406, 323, 504 and Section 3(x)(r) of the SC/ST Act for alleged caste‑based abuse during a money dispute. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge. On appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the appellant argued that the notice was served, the respondent failed to appear, the dispute was essentially civil, and there was no public caste abuse, making the criminal complaint untenable. The State opposed the bail. The Patna High Court set aside the lower court’s refusal, granting anticipatory bail with a cash bond and sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under the SC/ST Act where the alleged caste abuse is not in public view and the dispute appears civil in nature.
  • Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act was justified.
  • Whether the service of notice and the respondent’s non‑appearance affect the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • SC/ST Act
  • caste abuse
  • civil dispute
  • Section 14-A
  • Section 482
  • IPC offences
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.56 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2040 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Banka
                 ======================================================
                 Anjay Kumar @ Anjoy Kumar @ Ajay Kumar S/O Kamta Prasad Srivastava
                 R/O Vill.- Babu Tola, Ward no. 7, P.S.- Banka, Dist.- Banka.

                                                                                 ... ... Appellant/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Gyandeo Kumar Bharti S/O Sahdeo Das R/O Vill.- Karhariya, Ward no.
                 1/10, P.S.- Banka, Dist.- Banka.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :       Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh
                 For the Respondent/s    :       Ms. Usha Kumari 1
                 ======================================================
                 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, Ms. Usha Kumari 1.

                                   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 22.10.2024 in A.B.P. No. 1226 of 2024 passed by

                   the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge

                   S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Banka in connection with Special SC/ST

                   P.S. Case No. 39 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable

                   under Sections 420, 406, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code

                   as well as Sections 3(x)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.56 of 2025(6) dt.28-04-2026
                                             2/4




                           3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          from perusal of the office report dated 15.04.2026, it would

          manifest that the notice has been validly served on respondent

          no. 2, but then respondent no. 2 despite receiving notice chooses

          not to appear and contest.

                           4. It is next submitted that appellant is a person

          with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that he gave Rs.

          7,09,000/- to the appellant to do business with a promise that the

          money would be returned within six months, further the

          appellant gave cheques on 29.05.2020 and 24.08.2021 to the

          informant, which on presentation for encashment bounced,

          accordingly, on 11.02.2022 the informant went to the house of

          the appellant to demand his money back, when he was abused

          by caste name.

                           5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant. It is next submitted that even presuming what has

          been alleged is true without admitting then allegation of abusing

          by caste name is not alleged to have taken place in public view,

          as informant alleges that he had gone to the house of the

          appellant to seek his money back, when he was abused. It is also

          submitted that the dispute is purely civil to which a criminal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.56 of 2025(6) dt.28-04-2026
                                             3/4




          colour has been given. It is next submitted that if the cheques,

          on presentation for encashment bounced, the appellant will face

          consequences in accordance with law, but then the instant case

          has been instituted only with a view to coerce the appellant into

          submission, so that the appellant under fear of arrest parts with

          the fanciful demand of the informant. It is also submitted that

          this perhaps explains why the informant despite receiving notice

          chooses not to appear and contest. It is further submitted that the

          FIR has not been instituted under Section 138 NI Act.

                           6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer

          for anticipatory bail of the appellant.

                           7. In view of the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the appellant, the order dated 22.10.2024 in A.B.P.

          No. 1226 of 2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions

          Judge-cum-Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Banka in

          connection with Special SC/ST P.S. Case No. 39 of 2023, is

          hereby set aside and the appellant above-named, in the event of

          his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today,

          be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

          5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like

          amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where

          the case is pending/successor court in connection with SC/ST
            Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.56 of 2025(6) dt.28-04-2026
                                                         4/4




                      P.S. Case No. 39 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down

                      under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

                                       8. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.



                                                               (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.