Patna High Court
Prince KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Holding
The High Court held that the appellant is entitled to bail and set aside the trial court’s order refusing bail.
Summary
Prince Kumar was charged under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly posing as a recovery agent, seizing a tractor financed by Tata Motors, and abusing the victim's caste name. He had previously been granted bail in 2021 on the condition that his criminal antecedents be verified, and he disclosed two prior cases in a supplementary affidavit. The trial court later refused bail after finding those antecedents, cancelling his earlier bail bond. On appeal, the Patna High Court held that the appellant had complied with the bail conditions, was already on bail in another case, and therefore deserved release on a fresh bail bond. The court set aside the trial court’s order and directed his release on bail of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court was justified in refusing bail after verification of the appellant's criminal antecedents despite an earlier bail order with conditions.
- Whether the appellant’s disclosure of antecedents and existing bail in another case entitles him to a fresh bail bond.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 480(3)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 420, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- SC/ST Act
- IPC offences
- caste abuse
- verification of antecedents
- high court appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5682 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2020 Thana- KASMA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Prince Kumar S/o- Ajay Singh Village-Jalwaiya PS- Kaler Distt- Arwal
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Umesh Das S/o- Late Surdeo Das Village- Khairi Itwan Ps- Kasma Dist-
Aurangabad
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sameer Darshan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari-1, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
3 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special P.P. for the State.
2. The appellant, in the present case, is seeking setting
aside of the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge,
SC/ST (POA) Act, Aurangabad in connection with Kasma P.S.
Case No. 63 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections
341/323/504/506/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)
(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant is in custody
since 27.09.2024, he has got six criminal antecedents and in all
these cases he is on bail.
3. As per the prosecution story, this appellant has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5682 of 2024(3) dt.26-02-2026
2/5
forged himself as a recovery agent and had taken away the
tractor of the informant on which the informant had admittedly
taken financial assistance from M/s. Tata Motor Company. It is
alleged that when the informant went to the house of this
appellant to enquire about the tractor then the appellant is
alleged to have abused him by taking his caste name.
4. It appears that the appellant was granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 26.10.2021 in connection with the
present case in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 3563 of 2021. In the said
order, this Court has recorded that in the supplementary affidavit
filed on behalf of the appellant, the appellant has stated that
after lodgment of this case, he had been taken on remand in
three other cases but in the case diary there was no criminal
antecedent of the appellant.
5. While granting bail to the appellant, this Court has
imposed one of the following conditions:-
"And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and
in case at any stage it is found that the appellant
has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court
below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond
of the appellant. However, the acceptance of bail
bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall
not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification."
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5682 of 2024(3) dt.26-02-2026
3/5
6. It appears on perusal of order dated 26.10.2021 that
this Court has taken notice of the allegations against the
appellant. The allegation is that this appellant had forged
himself as a recovery agent and had taken away the tractor of
the informant on which the informant had admittedly taken
financial assistance from M/s. Tata Motors Company.
7. It was submitted on behalf of the learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the State that the appellant had hurled
abuses in the caste name, however, this Court noticed the nature
of the transactions, the huge delay of over one year two months
in lodging of the FIR from the alleged date of occurrence and
that the appellant had already remained in jail for over three
months and granted him bail.
8. At this stage, it appears from the impugned order
passed by the learned trial court that the learned court has
refused to enlarge the appellant on bail as it was found after
verification of the bail bond that the appellant had two criminal
antecedents being Kachhwa P.S. Case No. 104 of 2021 and
Sigodi P.S. Case No. 104 of 2021, but the police had reported
that the appellant had no criminal history vide paragraph '20' of
the case diary and the local P.S. also reported that the appellant
had no criminal history. Keeping in view the condition imposed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5682 of 2024(3) dt.26-02-2026
4/5
by this Court in its order dated 26.10.2021, the learned trial
court refused to release the appellant on bail who had been
taken into custody since 27.09.2021.
9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
does not dispute that the appellant had filed a supplementary
affidavit in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3563 of 2021, in which he
had disclosed that after lodgement of the case, the appellant has
been taken on remand in three other cases but in the case diary,
there is no criminal antecedent of the appellant.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
appellant who had already been granted bail but has been taken
into custody after cancellation of his bail bond deserves his
release on submission of fresh bail bond. In paragraph '3' of the
present appeal, he has declared that he is on bail in Sigodi P.S.
Case No. 104 of 2021. He has also declared his six criminal
antecedents. In the circumstances, this Court sets-aside the
impugned order and directs release of the appellant above-
named on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST (POA)
Act, Aurangabad in connection with Kasma P.S. Case No. 63 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5682 of 2024(3) dt.26-02-2026
5/5
2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 480
(3) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
11. This application stands allowed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
rishik/-
U T
Checking your session…