Patna High Court
RAVINDRA MALAH @ RAVINDRA KUMAR @ RABINDRA MALAHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the lower court’s refusal of anticipatory bail and granted bail to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, three brothers from Durgapur, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC offences for an alleged caste‑based assault that occurred on 24‑12‑2019. The FIR was lodged on 25‑02‑2020 after a complaint was filed on 06‑01‑2020, and the trial court refused anticipatory bail on 05‑10‑2020. The appellants contended that they have clean antecedents, were falsely implicated, that the delay in filing the FIR undermines the prosecution’s case, and that the alleged assault was not in public view and therefore Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was not attracted. The High Court examined these submissions, found merit in the arguments regarding the nature of the alleged injury and the procedural delay, and set aside the trial court’s order. It granted anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond and surety conditions, and ordered the appeal to be allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to persons accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when the alleged offence does not satisfy the criteria of Section 18.
- Whether the delay between the alleged incident, the complaint, and the FIR warrants a discharge or bail.
- Whether the appellants can be considered falsely implicated and thus entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 307, 323, 354, 379, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 18, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 18
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- caste based violence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.635 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2020 Thana- SC/ST District- Saran
======================================================
1. RAVINDRA MALAH @ RAVINDRA KUMAR @ RABINDRA MALAH
Son of Mokhali Malah Resident of Village - Durgapur, P.S.- Manjhi, District
- Saran
2. Vivek Malah@ Vivek Kumar Son of Mokhali Malah Resident of Village -
Durgapur, P.S.- Manjhi, District - Saran
3. Ramayan Malah Son of Bhuti Malah Resident of Village - Durgapur, P.S.-
Manjhi, District - Saran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rameshwar Ram Kailash Ram R/O Village- Durgapur, P.S.- Manjhi,
District-Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advoate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 31-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Mr. Binay Krishna.
2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.
2.
3. 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 05.10.2020 in A.B.P. No. 1384 of 2020 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.635 of 2021(4) dt.31-03-2026
2/4
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Saran at Chapra in connection with Chapra
SC/ST P.S. Case No. 16 of 2020 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 323, 354, 307, 504 and 379 of
the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)
(va) of the SC/ST Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent. It is next
submitted that the present FIR arises from a complaint case
bearing Complaint Case No. SC/ST 03 of 2020. It is next
submitted that the informant alleges that accused persons came
to his house on 24.12.2019 and started abusing by taking caste
name, on objection, Ravindra assaulted the informant by khanti
causing injury on head, thereafter Saheb assaulted by lathi and
when his wife Rita came to save him, accused Nakul acted
inappropriately and Mahendra assaulted her by dab causing
injury on head, thereafter Ranjan assaulted Manoj by farsa
causing injury on head, while Ravi, Rajesh and Mukesh acted
inappropriately with Maina and Suman Devi and when people
gathered, they fled, hence a Complaint Case No. 03 of 2020 was
instituted on 06.01.2020, based on which the instant FIR came
to be instituted on 25.02.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.635 of 2021(4) dt.31-03-2026
3/4
the appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that date of occurrence is
24.12.2019 and the complaint case came to be instituted on
06.01.2020 i.e. after a delay of more than 13 days, based on
which the instant FIR was instituted on 25.02.2020. It is next
submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that no specific allegation of abuse and
assault is alleged against the appellant nos. 2 and 3 and as far as
appellant no. 1 is concerned, he is alleged to have assaulted the
informant by khanti causing injury on head, but then it is
submitted that injury suffered by the injured has been opined to
be simple in nature and the occurrence is alleged to have taken
place in the house of the informant, thus, was not in public view
hence rigors of Section 18 of SC/ST Act would not apply and
the blow is not alleged to be repeated. It is also submitted that it
absolutely does not stand to reason that if what has been alleged
is a correct fact then why no FIR at the initial stage was
instituted, which also casts an aspersion on the case of the
prosecution. It is next submitted that the case was taken up on
01.11.2021 when notices were issued on the respondent no. 2
and in the meantime it was directed that there shall be no
coercive action against the appellants until further orders of this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.635 of 2021(4) dt.31-03-2026
4/4
Court, as such the investigation was not stayed, but then charge
sheet till date has not been submitted.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the
appeal.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the order dated 05.10.2020 in
connection with Chapra SC/ST P.S. Case No. 16 of 2020, is
hereby set aside and the appellants above-named, in the event
of their 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) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court
below where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Chapra SC/ST P.S. Case No. 16 of 2020 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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.