Patna High Court

Sukha Rai @ Devendra Prasad Yadav @ NetajiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 April 2026
Disposal: WITHDRAWN
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The appeal is dismissed and anticipatory bail is denied.

Summary

The appellant, Sukha Rai, was charged under Section 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 3(i)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly raping a woman after promising her a job and abusing her with caste‑based slurs. The trial court rejected his prayer for anticipatory bail. On appeal, the appellant contended that the FIR lacked any mention of a public presence and that no SC/ST offence was made out, asserting his innocence and clean record. The State, represented by a Special Public Prosecutor, opposed bail, emphasizing the specific and grave nature of the accusations. The Patna High Court, after considering the seriousness of the alleged rape and caste‑based harassment, held that anticipatory bail could not be granted and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged rape and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Whether the FIR discloses a public presence sufficient to negate the applicability of the SC/ST Act.
Whether the gravity of the alleged offences justifies denial of pre‑arrest bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 64(1)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(i)(w)(i)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
rape
SC/ST Act
caste based slur
bail denial
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.950 of 2026

                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2025 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Sukha Rai @ Devendra Prasad Yadav @ Netaji Son of Late Sogarath Rai
                 Resident of Village - Simara Parasparri, P.S. - Dumra, Dist- Sitamarhi.

                                                                                  ... ... Appellant/s
                                                       Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Ragini Kumari Wife of Dinesh Rai Resident of Village - Simara, Parasparri,
                 P.S. - Dumra, Dist- Sitamarhi.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant       :        Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   19-03-2026                 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

                   Spl.PP for the State.

                               2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order

                   dated 17.01.2026 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions

                   Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitamarhi in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Section 64(1) of the

                   B.N.S. and Section 3(i)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and

                   Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the

                   prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.

                               3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.950 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
                                             2/3




          appellant called the informant on the pretext of providing job

          and committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that this

          appellant also abused the informant with caste based slurs and

          threatened not to disclose the ordeal to anyone.

                       4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the appellant that appellant is quite innocent and has

          committed no offence. Appellant has falsely been implicated in

          this case with ulterior motive. The F.I.R. does not disclose that

          any member of public was present at the alleged incidence and

          as such, no case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

          Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Act is made out against

          this appellant. Appellant claims clean antecedents.

                       5. On the other hand, learned Special PP for the State

          has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail

          to the appellant and submitted that appellant is named in the

          F.I.R. and there is specific accusation that on the pretext of

          providing job, he called the informant and thereafter, committed

          rape. The appellant also threatened the informant not to disclose

          the ordeal to anyone and abused her with caste based slurs.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.950 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
                                                          3/3




                       offence, appellant’s prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail is rejected

                       and this appeal is dismissed.



                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…