Patna High Court
Dinesh Sao @ Dinesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; anticipatory bail is not granted to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Dinesh Sao, was charged under several IPC provisions and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting and extorting a landowner during a dispute over a boundary wall that was being demolished with a JCB. The informant claimed that the incident was captured on CCTV and that the appellant and co‑accused used caste‑based abusive language and demanded Rs 10 lakh. The appellant contended that he had a clean record, was falsely implicated, and that the real dispute was between the landowner and the son of a former MLA. He sought anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, but the Special Judge refused the relief. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined the informant’s evidence, including the CCTV footage and the charge‑sheet, and found the allegations credible. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and denied anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act should be granted to the appellant in view of the alleged caste‑based assault and extortion.
- Whether the evidence, particularly the CCTV recording and charge‑sheet, justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 126(2), 308(3), 3(5), 351(2), 353
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste discrimination
- land dispute
- extortion
- IPC offences
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 5612 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2024 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Dinesh Sao @ Dinesh Kumar Son of Late Sudeshwar Sao Resident ofVilage-
Nasirchak, P.S.- Shahpur, Distt.- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arjun Choudhary Son of Late Foujdari Choudhary Resident of Anishabad,
P.S.- Gardanibagh, Distt.- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ganesh Prasad Yadav
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP
Mr. Sanjeev Sharan, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 27-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned
Spl. P.P. for the State, Sri Sadanand Paswan 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 21-11-2024 in A.B.P. No. 4598 of 2024 passed by
the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Sadar
Patna in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No. 332 of 2024
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 308(3), 353, 351(2), and 3(5) of BNS Code as well as
Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 5612 of 2024(4) dt.27-01-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that his ancestor had purchased a piece of land at Mauza
Khedalpura, further on 1-10-2024 son of ex-MLA along with
named accused persons came on the land and started
demolishing the boundary wall by JCB machine and he came to
know about the occurrence which was captured by the CCTV
installed at the land, further when he reached the place of
occurrence, on orders of Sachchidnand, appellant, Bajrangi and
Ramu abused him by caste name and demanded extortion of Rs.
10 lakh.
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, it would manifest that on
account of dispute relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place. It is further submitted that the thrust of the
allegation is against the son of ex-MLA, who is alleged to have
come to the place of occurrence with JCB machine and got the
boundary wall demolished.
5. Learned Spl. PP and the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant opposes the appeal. The learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 5612 of 2024(4) dt.27-01-2026
3/3
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that it was
this appellant who was trying to usurp the land of the informant
for which he had also filed a title suit, but when written
statement was filed by the informant, the appellant left the suit,
as such it was dismissed for non-prosecution, it was thereafter
that at the behest of the appellant the occurrence was committed
and the entire occurrence was captured in the CCTV installed at
the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that there is a
specific allegation against the appellant and others of abusing
the informant by caste name at the place of occurrence which
was in public view. It is next submitted that police after
investigation has submitted charge-sheet. It is further submitted
that appellant in the instant appeal has not even remotely
suggested that the occurrence was not captured in the CCTV.
6. Considering the submission made by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not
inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
appellant.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…