Patna High Court – Orders
Prayag Sao vs The State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.324 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2018 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
1. Prayag Sao S/o- Late Cander Sao Village- Bajaura Ps- Dobhi Dist- Gaya
2. Birendra Sao S/o- Prayag Sao Village- Bajaura Ps- Dobhi Dist- Gaya
3. Harinandan Sao @ Harinandan Kumar @ Harinandan Kumar Sao S/o-
Prayag Sao Village- Bajaura Ps- Dobhi Dist- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manager Das S/o- Late Somar Das Village- Bazaura Ps- Dobhi Dist- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as
learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. An order, dated 07.12.2024, passed by learned Additional
Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST, Gaya, in ABP No. 360 of
2024, is under challenge in the present appeal preferred
under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
whereby the anticipatory bail application of the appellants
in connection with SC/ST Police Station Case No. 18 of
2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.324 of 2025(3) dt.02-04-2025
2/6
149/392/323/504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25
of the Arms Act and Section 3 (1)(r)(s)/ 3(2)(va) of the
Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, has been rejected.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that on 01.12.2016, at about 05:00 AM, the appellants
demolished and taken away the iron gate of the
informant/complainant on the ground that the gate was
installed on a public land made for public passage. The
appellants also allegedly assaulted and abused the
informant by his caste name.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the
appellants and informant are neighbours and genesis of
this case is land dispute between them. The land dispute
is apparent from the statement made in complaint/FIR. He
next submits that the case is pending before the Revenue
Court for measurement of disputed land and it is evident
from the complaint that the nature of case is civil dispute,
but it has been given the colour of criminal case, alleging
commission of offence under the sections of SC/ST Act.
He further submits that abuse by caste name is not in full
public view and there is no sign of injury upon the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.324 of 2025(3) dt.02-04-2025
3/6
informant. The police, after investigation, found the case
as untrue, and submitted the final form, not sending the
appellants for trial. However, the Special Court, SC/ST,
Gaya, differed with the police report and took cognizance
against the appellants in mechanical manner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.
2 vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and
submits that once cognizance has been taken against the
appellants, prima facie case is made out against them, as
such, this anticipatory bail is not maintainable in view of
the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Bachu
Das v. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 471.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the materials available on records, including the
First Information Report.
7. Although, as a general rule, for the offences committed
under SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail is not maintainable as
per Section 18 of the Act. However, in the case of Vilas
Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
and Ors, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795, and Bachu Das
(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court carved out an exception
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.324 of 2025(3) dt.02-04-2025
4/6
to this rule, wherein, it has been held that the scope of the
SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is that it
creates a specific bar for the grant of anticipatory bail,
however, if on a prima facie reading of the materials
referred to in the complaint and the complaint itself, the
ingredients necessary for constituting the offence are not
made out, the bar of Section 18 would not be applicable
and it would be open to the courts to consider the plea for
the grant of pre-arrest bail on its own merits. This view
was reiterated in the case of Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors,
reported in (2018) 6 454, Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union
of India, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, and Shajan
Skaria v. State of Kerala, reported in 2024 SCC online
SC 2249.
8. Further, in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of
Uttarakhand and Anr., reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that offence under the
Act is not established merely on the fact that the
informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is
an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.324 of 2025(3) dt.02-04-2025
5/6
such caste. It was further observed in the aforesaid case
that since the parties are litigating over the possession
over the land, any dispute arising on account of
possession of the land/property would not disclose an
offence under the Act unless the victim is abused,
intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she
belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
9. Coming back to the fact of the present case, it appears
from the First Information Report that occurrence has
taken place due to land dispute, caste name was not taken
in full public view, there is no sign of injury upon the
informant and both the parties are neighbours having
dispute regarding passage. The allegation of humiliation,
harassment and using caste name of the informant by the
appellants and other accused persons are not due to fact
that the informant/complainant belongs to the vulnerable
section of the society.
10.Considering the land dispute between the parties and both
the parties are claiming land, for which, measurement
proceeding is pending before the Revenue Court,
accordingly, I am inclined to grant the appellants
privilege of anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.324 of 2025(3) dt.02-04-2025
6/6
11.This appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the order, dated
07.12.2024, passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge,
SC/ST, Gaya, in ABP No. 360 of 2024, is set aside.
12.Let the appellants, above named, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the Court below within four
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, Gaya, in connection with SC/ST
Police Station Case No. 18 of 2017, subject to the
condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
ashwani/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link