Patna High Court
Rinku DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable once cognizance is taken under the SC/ST Act; the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
Rinku Devi appealed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge who had rejected her anticipatory bail application in a case registered under Sections 467, 468, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. She sought pre‑arrest bail, but the respondent argued that cognizance had already been taken under the SC/ST Act, making anticipatory bail untenable. The Patna High Court considered the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar, which holds that once cognizance is taken under the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. Applying that precedent, the Court found the appeal not maintainable. The appeal was therefore dismissed, leaving the appellant in custody pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when cognizance has already been taken under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(x)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cognizance
- SC/ST Act
- IPC offences
- bail jurisprudence
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.707 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2023 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nalanda
======================================================
Rinku Devi Wife of Late Rakesh Singh Resident of Mohalla- Ashok Nagar
Road No. 01, Brindaban society House No. V/3, Kankarbagh, police station
kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajiv Kumar Son of Radhey Paswan Resident of Village- Khaje Atwar
Sarai, P.S.- Rahui (Bhagan Bigha O.P.), Distt.- Nalanda
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kripanand Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. Public Prosecutor
For the R.No. 2 : Mr. Prashant Shekhar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 23-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant, respondent no. 2 and Spl. Public Prosecutor.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
22.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge VI cum
Special Judge, SC/ST, Biharsharif, Nalanda in ABP No. 106 of
2025 arising out of Complaint Case No. 76C of 2023, registered
under Sections 467, 468, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, whereby the prayer for
anticipatory bail of appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent no.
2 vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.707 of 2025(5) dt.23-04-2026
2/2
the instant anticipatory bail is not maintainable as cognizance
under SC/ST Act has already been taken against the appellant by
learned Court below and in this connection, he refers to a
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in case of
Bachu Das Vs State of Bihar and others, reported in Cr.
Appeal No. 314 of 2014.
4. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme court in case of Bachu Das (supra), instant appeal filed
for pre-arrest bail to the appellant, is dismissed as being not
maintainable.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…