Patna High Court
Deo Kumar DubeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the refusal of anticipatory bail and granted it to the appellant, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The appellant Deo Kumar Dubey appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Special Judge’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 132, 303(2), 224 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, 2023 and Sections 3(i)(r), 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant claimed he was falsely implicated in a dispute over compensation for a cow that died in a fire, and that the informant had fabricated the charges. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The Patna High Court, after considering the appellant’s clean antecedent and the alleged frivolous nature of the complaint, set aside the lower court’s order and granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 5,000 with two sureties, invoking Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act for granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether the allegations against the appellant constitute a false or frivolous case under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the lower court erred in refusing anticipatory bail in light of the appellant’s clean record and the circumstances of the case.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(S), 3(i)(r)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- caste based offence
- Section 14-A
- Section 482
- Bihar criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.801 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-662 Year-2024 Thana- DAUDNAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Deo Kumar Dubey S/O Late Jugat Narayan Dubey Resident of Village-
Khairadeep, P.S.- Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Satyadeo Ram Son of Ramvriksh Ram R/O Vill Khuthan P.S Obra Dist
Aurangabad,
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Pandey
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 30-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special P.P. Ms. Usha Kumari No.I for the State. No one
appears on behalf of the respondent no.2.
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 28.01.2025 in A.B.P. No. 2658/2024, arising out of
Daudnagar P.S. Case No.662/2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST-cum-A.D.J.-1st, Aurangabad, registered
under Sections 132, 303(2), 224 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections
3(i)(r), 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.801 of 2025(5) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he is Head Clerk in Circle Office, further he
received file of the appellant with an objection from DCLR
relating to compensation of death relating to cow as there was
no mention of death of fire on account of fire, further Dev
Kumar came and fled with the file and abused by taking caste
name and also threatened.
4. Learned counsel submits that appellant has been
falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next
submitted that cow of the appellant died on account of fire and
postmortem report was also submitted but then the authorities
instead of paying compensation in accordance with law were
making the appellant run from pillar to post. It is also submitted
that the file had come with an objection that the cow was burnt
but had not died, the said objection was a frivolous objection as
appellant has submitted the postmortem report of the cow even,
as such the appellant had gone to the office for verifying that as
to whether his compensation amount has come or not on which
an altercation took place and the instant false case came to be
instituted.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.801 of 2025(5) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
appeal.
6. Considering the submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the order impugned is set aside and
the appellant, above named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court
below where the case is pending in connection with the
aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…