Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar Singh @ Abhishek Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail, and directed that bail be granted subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, Ranjeet Kumar Singh and Pawan Kumar Ravidas, were accused of extorting Rs.1,00,000 and assaulting the informant's son with caste-based abuse and an iron rod, leading to injuries. They sought anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after a Special Judge had rejected their bail application. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offences, while the defence highlighted the appellants' clean antecedent, a 13‑day delay in lodging the FIR, and the fact that the alleged assault did not occur in public view. The High Court considered these factors, along with the statutory provisions, and held that bail could be granted conditionally, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, and compliance with Section 482(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act in view of the alleged offences.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of public view of the alleged assault justify granting bail.
- Whether the appellants' clean antecedent is a sufficient ground for anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste-based violence
- assault
- extortion
- delay in FIR
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.981 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-358 Year-2024 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna
======================================================
1. Ranjeet Kumar Singh @ Abhishek Ranjan Kumar S/o- Shi Bachan Prasad
Singh @ Bachan Singh @ Shiv Bachan Prasad Singh Resident of Village-
Bauk Mohiuddinpur, P.S.- Punpun, District- Patna
2. Pawan Kumar Ravidas @ Pawan Ravidas S/o- Shivjatan Ravidas Resident
of Village- Bauk Mohiuddinpur, P.S.- Punpun, District- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Savita Kumari W/o- Jhulan Kumar Resident of Village- Bauk
Mohiuddinpur, P.S.- Punpun, District- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sheonandan Pandit, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.PP
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Lallu Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been directed against the order dated
06.01.2025 in A.B.P. No. 4967/2024 passed by learned
Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST Act, Patna in connection with
Punpun P.S. Case No. 358 of 2024 registered under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 308(3), 308(5), 303(2), 352 of the B.N.S and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.981 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the prayer
for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant,
namely Sabita Kumari, alleged that on 17.10.2024 at 07:00 PM,
while informant’s son was returning from his work, the
appellants and co-accused persons intercepted him and
demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from her son, namely, Bittu Kumar.
When her son raised objection, appellant No.1 (Ranjeet Kumar
Singh) and co-accused Golu Kumar Singh started abusing him
by taking caste name, thereafter the appellant no.2 assaulted the
informant’s son with an iron rod on his nose as a result of which
he sustained injury. It is further alleged that all the accused
persons assaulted her son with lathi and danda due to which he
sustained injuries and fell unconsciously on the ground. It is
further alleged that they took his purse containing Rs.20,000/-
and other documents. At 11:00 P.M., the informant’s son
reached his house soaked in blood started crying and fell
unconscious on the ground. Thereafter, informant took her son
to Punpun police station by tempo from where he was sent to
Punpun Hospital and from where he was referred to P.M.C.H.,
Patna for better treatment.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.981 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants, who are of clean antecedent, are innocent and
have not committed any offence. It is further submitted that
there is a delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR and from the
written report itself, it is clear that the date of filing the written
report before the police station was kept blank and it was
inserted by hand and stating that he was filling the written report
on 30.10.2024. It is further submitted that no persons have been
claimed to be present there at the time of occurrence, so as to
make the allegation come under the public view. The allegation
with respect to offence under Sections 383, 385 and 303(2) of
B.N.S. is ornamental in nature. Hence, the impugned order may
be set aside and the appellants may be granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted
that the allegations are serious in nature against the appellants.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and also the fact that the appellants bear clean
antecedent coupled with the fact that there is delay in lodging
the FIR along with the fact that the alleged occurrence of abuse
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.981 of 2025(4) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
having not taken place within public view, let the above named
appellants, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period
of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Judge SC/ST Act, Patna in connection with Punpun P.S. Case
No. 358 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 06.01.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants is set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…