Patna High Court
Aditya RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the trial court’s refusal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Aditya Raj, was charged under Sections 64, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act, 2023 and Sections 3(i)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for alleged offences arising from a personal relationship with the informant, Shweta Kumari. The trial court refused anticipatory bail on 13 January 2026. The appellant appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, contending that the allegations were false, that he had a clean record, and that the informant was already married, making the complaint malicious. The informant’s counsel indicated no intention to oppose the bail application. The Patna High Court set aside the trial court’s order, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.5,000 and two sureties, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act in view of the alleged offences.
- Whether the allegations against the appellant constitute a false or malicious complaint.
- Whether the trial court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail was legally justified.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sale Act, 2023 — s. 115(2), 351(2), 64
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(v), 3(i)(r)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false allegations
- caste discrimination
- criminal procedure
- relationship dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.727 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-406 Year-2025 Thana- ASHTHAWAN District- Nalanda
======================================================
Aditya Raj S/O Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar Resident of Mohalla- Etwari
Bazar, P.S.- Bihar Sharif, Dist- Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shweta Kumari D/O Manoj Kumar R/O Village- Mustafapur, P.S- Asthawan,
Distt.- Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Special P.P. for the State, Mr. Binay Krishna 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 13.01.2026 in A.B.P. No. 2322 of 2025 passed by
the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda in connection with
Asthawan P.S. Case No. 406 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 64, 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS,
2023 as well as Sections 3 (i)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.727 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
2/3
alleges that she was in a relationship with the appellant for the
last three years and they established physical relation on several
occasions, further appellant had assured that he will marry her
in November, 2025, next alleges that when she asked the
appellant to marry her on 30.11.2025, the appellant refused
saying that they belong to different caste and he will marry in
his own caste and will also get dowry.
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 it is not in dispute that
appellant and informant were in a relationship, but then
appellant was not aware that informant was married from
before. It is submitted that informant was married to Mukesh on
10.12.2021 and had instituted Complaint Case No. 142 of 2023
against Mukesh and has also filed a Maintenance Case No. 37 of
2023 on 01.05.2023 under section 125 Cr.P.C, further Mukesh
had also filed Matrimonial Case No. 257 of 2022 under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restituting his conjugal rights
with the informant, it is thus submitted that when appellant
came to know that informant was married from before and
concealing her earlier marriage had entered into a relationship
with the informant, as such, he declined to marry, but then the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.727 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
3/3
instant FIR came to be instituted with false allegation.
5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that he has instruction not to
oppose the anticipatory bail application of the appellant.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the order dated 13.01.2026 in A.B.P.
No. 2322 of 2025, is hereby set aside and the appellant above-
named, in the event of his 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)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with Asthawan P.S. Case No. 406 of 2025
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of
the BNSS.
7. 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.