Patna High Court
Murari Singh @ Krishna Murari Singh @ Krishna MurariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail and set aside the order rejecting it.
Summary
Murari Singh appealed against the Special Judge’s order rejecting his anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that Singh, along with co‑accused, assaulted and attempted to outrage the modesty of Rina Devi, robbed her husband, and fired a pistol, invoking several IPC offences, the Arms Act and the SC/ST Act. The appellant argued that he has a clean antecedent, no physical evidence of violence was found, and the alleged caste slurs were not made in a public place. The High Court considered the lack of forensic evidence, the appellant’s clean record, and the private nature of the alleged abuse, and concluded that bail could be granted. Accordingly, the court set aside the order of the Special Judge and allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant be released on anticipatory bail upon surrender and furnishing bond.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act despite the serious allegations.
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse and other offences fall within the ambit of the SC/ST Act given the circumstances of the incident.
- Whether the appellant’s clean antecedent and the absence of physical evidence justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 148, 149, 307, 34, 354B, 379, 386, 387
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 2(r)(s), 3(1)(a)(d)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- assault
- robbery
- firearm discharge
- clean antecedent
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.687 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-284 Year-2023 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran
======================================================
Murari Singh @ Krishna Murari Singh @ Krishna Murari Son of Bhola Singh
Residnet of Village- Ramban, Brahm Asthan, PS- Pakaridayal, Ditrict- East
Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rina Devi Wife of Rajkumar Paswan Resident of Village- Ramban, Brahm
Asthan, P.S.- Pakaridayal,Distt.- East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Although the
notice has been validly served upon respondent No.2, there is no
representation on his behalf.
2. This appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been directed against the order dated
21.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST), East
Champaran, Motihari, in A.B.P. No. 4032 of 2024 in connection
with Pakaridayal P.S. Case No. 284 of 2023, registered under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 354B, 307, 379, 386, 387/34 of
the I.P.C., under Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.687 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
3(1)(a)(d), 2(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 27.03.2021 at
05:00 P.M., the appellant along with co-accused persons armed
with weapons, went to the door of the informant, Rina Devi, and
hurled caste-based slurs at her. When she raised objection, co-
accused Bhola Singh started assaulting her by means of iron rod
as a result of which blood started oozing out from her private
part and co-accused Bhairav Singh and Murari Singh torn her
cloth and tried to outrage her modesty. On hulla, Raj kumar
Paswan (husband of the informant) came to rescue her then co-
accused Bhola Singh, Bhiarav Singh and Baliram Singh along
with 3-4 unknown persons took him to the bank of river and
also assaulted him brutally and threw him in the river. It is
further alleged that on 05.04.2021 at about 04:00 P.M., the
informant along with her husband was returning her home, in
the meantime, the appellant along with co-accused persons
surrounded them and started abusing by calling their caste name
and the appellant threatened them on the point of pistol and co-
accused persons snatched Rs. 1200/- from the pocked of Raj
Kumar Paswan and the appellant fired upon the husband of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.687 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
informant but the bullet did not hit him. It is further alleged that
the reason behind the occurrence is that the accused took Rs.
4000/- from the informant and when she demanded her money
the present occurrence took place.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the appellant bears clean antecedent and is
innocent. It has been further alleged that no marks of violence
was found at the place of occurrence and no empty cartridges
were recovered from there. It is also submitted that there is no
injury report on record to substantiate the allegation, demand of
ransom, theft, and molestation does not appear to be probable in
the facts of the case. As regards allegation of abuse with the
caste name attracting the rigours of SC & ST Act is concerned,
it is not committed in a public place nor any person has been
named to be present at the place of occurrence when the alleged
offence of abuse was being committed. He further submits that
no case, as alleged in the F.I.R, attracting rigours of SC & ST
Act, is made out against the appellant. Hence, the impugned
order may be set aside and the appellant may be granted the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.687 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
to the appellant.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and also the fact that the appellant bears clean
antecedent coupled with the fact that no marks of violence was
present at the place of occurrence and the allegation does not
appear to be within public view, let the above named appellant
in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (SC/ST), East
Champaran, Motihari, in connection with Pakaridayal P.S. Case
No. 284 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S/Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 21.10.2024 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellant is, hereby, set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…