Patna High Court
Mukesh SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that the allegations do not amount to an offence under the SC/ST Act and therefore anticipatory bail must be granted.
Summary
Mukesh Sahani appealed against the trial court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He was charged under IPC sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 and SC/ST Act sections 3(i), (r) and (s) for allegedly not paying wages to three labourers and for caste‑based abuse. The appellant argued that the dispute was a labour matter, he had given advance wages, the alleged abuse was not in public view and the FIR was false. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail but could not refute the claim that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence under the SC/ST Act. The High Court held that the allegations did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act and granted anticipatory bail, setting aside the lower court's order.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of caste‑based abuse, as pleaded in the FIR, constitute an offence punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act when the alleged abuse was not made in public view.
- Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(i), 3(r), 3(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste abuse
- false FIR
- IPC offences
- labour dispute
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.972 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2023 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Mukesh Sahani Son of Ramavtar Sahani @ Ramawtar Sahani Resident of
Village- Balhi, P.s.- Turkaliya, Distt.- East Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Aklu Ram Son of Late Kewal Ram Resident of Village- Bijulpur, P.S.-
Turkauliya, Distt.- East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
8 16-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and 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 20.09.2024 in A.B.P. No. 4175 of 2024 passed by
the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, East Champaran at
Motihari in connection with Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 30 of
2023 registered under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST
Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.972 of 2025(8) dt.16-03-2026
2/4
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that the case was referred for mediation but
then mediation failed. It is further submitted that appellant is a
person with clean antecedent and in sum and substance, the
informant alleges that appellant had taken his three sons for
working in an incense stick factory from November, 2021 to
September, 2022 and gave them Rs.40,000/- in advance. It is
next alleged that despite his sons worked but they did not get the
wages and when the informant approached the appellant he was
abused by taking caste name.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in
the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that informant himself alleges that appellant had taken
his sons for working in a factory and thereafter his sons worked
in the said factory but then if the payment was not made, the
appellant cannot be faulted. It is next submitted that initially
when the sons of the informant had accompanied the appellant
for doing the work in the factory the appellant had given them
advance. It is also submitted that as far as allegation of abuse is
alleged, the same is ornamental in nature and even presuming
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.972 of 2025(8) dt.16-03-2026
3/4
what has been alleged is true without admitting then abuse was
not hurled in public view as informant alleges that he was
abused at the doors steps of the appellant. It is further submitted
that the instant FIR has been instituted only to coerce the
appellant into submission so that he parts with the fanciful
demands of the informant. It is next submitted that if wages of
the sons of the informant has not been paid by the owner of the
factory then his sons have remedy of approaching an authority
of competent jurisdiction.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellant but then are not in a
position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the nature of
allegation prima facie no offecne under the SC/ST Act is made
out as abuse was not hurled in public view nor the FIR even
remotely suggest that abuse heard by any independent person.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let 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 bonds of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.972 of 2025(8) dt.16-03-2026
4/4
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where
the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…