Patna High Court
GUDDU SAHNI @ AMARNATH SAHNIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the lower court's refusal and granted anticipatory bail, holding that the notice was validly served and Section 18 does not bar bail in a private‑premises incident.
Summary
The appellants, Guddu Sahni and Arbind Sahni, appealed to the Patna High Court against the Special Judge's refusal to grant anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act in a case involving alleged offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. They contended that the notice was validly served through a jointness application, that they have clean antecedents, and that the incident occurred in a private residence, rendering Section 18 of the SC/ST Act inapplicable. The State opposed the appeal. The High Court held that the notice was valid, the private nature of the alleged assault precluded the operation of Section 18, and the lower court erred in denying bail. Consequently, the order refusing anticipatory bail was set aside and the appellants were granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The validity of service of notice through jointness for anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies when the alleged offence occurred in a private residence.
- Whether the lower court erred in refusing anticipatory bail given the facts and clean antecedent of the appellants.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 18, 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 18
- jointness notice
- private premises
- criminal procedure
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.919 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2020 Thana- BALIGAON District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. GUDDU SAHNI @ AMARNATH SAHNI S/O LAKSHAN SAHNI @
RAM LAKSHAN SAHNI R/o village- Agrail Khurd, P.O.- Champapur,
P.S.- Baligaon, District- Vaishali
2. ARBIND SAHNI @ ARBIND KUMAR S/O LAKSHAN SAHNI @ RAM
LAKSHAN SAHNI R/o village- Agrail Khurd, P.O.- Champapur, P.S.-
Baligaon, District- Vaishali
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. RAJESH RAJAK S/o Late Nanki Rajak R/o village- Agrail Khurd, P.O.-
Champapur, P.S.- Baligaon, District- Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 29-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Special P.P. for the State, Mr. Binay Krishna.
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 20.01.2022 in A.B.P. No. 3507 of 2021 passed by
the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Vaishali at
Hajipur in connection with Baligaon P.S. Case No. 55 of 2020
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341,
504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section
3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.919 of 2022(7) dt.29-06-2026
2/3
jointness application has been filed stating that niece of the
informant is staying in jointness with the informant, as such, the
notice is received by the niece (Kajal Kumari), is deemed to be
validly served. It is next submitted that the informant despite
receiving notice validly chooses not to appear and contest.
4. It is next submitted that appellants are persons
with clean antecedent and from perusal of the allegation as
alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on account of dispute
relating to passage, it is alleged that accused persons including
the appellants came in the evening at 06:30 PM in a drunken
condition and abused him by taking caste name and Guddu
assaulted him causing injury on nose.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that on account of dispute
relating to passage, an altercation had taken place in which both
sides assaulted each other. It is also submitted that though it is
alleged that accused persons came in a drunken state, but then
the FIR has not been instituted under the Excise Act. It is further
submitted that since the occurrence is alleged to have taken
place at the house of the informant hence was not in public
view, as such, rigors of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act shall not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.919 of 2022(7) dt.29-06-2026
3/3
apply, it is next submitted that this perhaps explains why
informant despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and
contest.
6. Learned Special 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 20.01.2022 in A.B.P.
No. 3507 of 2021, 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 Trial Court where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with Baligaon P.S. Case No. 55 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.