Jay Krishna Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 24 June, 2025

Patna High Court – Orders

Jay Krishna Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 24 June, 2025

Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma

Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1645 of 2022
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2022 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia
                 ======================================================
                 Jay Krishna Mahto Son of Janak Mahto R/o Village- Patraha, Beldari Tola,
                 P.S.- Barhara, District- Purnia

                                                                                 ... ... Appellant/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Sanjay Ram Son of Maheshwar Ram R/o Village- Patraha, Beldari Tola,
                 P.S.- Barhara, District- Purnia

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    :        Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s   :        Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   24-06-2025

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant as well as Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.P.P. for the

State.

2. Despite validly served notice, no one appears on

behalf of the Respondent No. 2.

3. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against

refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated

27.04.2022 passed by the learned Court of 1st Additional District

& Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnia in ABP

No. 29 of 2022 arising out of Barhara P.S. Case No. 68 of 2022,

F.I.R. dated 27.02.2022 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324,

379, 353, 354B, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1645 of 2022(5) dt.24-06-2025
2/4

Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

Act.

4. According to the prosecution case, all the accused

persons including this appellant have assaulted the informant

and his wife and also abused them by taking their caste name. It

is further alleged that they have threatended to kill them.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the

present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in

the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the appellant has not

committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further

submits that the F.I.R is in two parts. According to part one,

there is specific allegation of assault and abuse against the co-

accused, Chandan Kumar and according to part two, there is

general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons

including this appellant. He further submits that it appears from

the F.I.R itself that the occurrence in the second part of the F.I.R

took place in the house of the informant, so no case is made out

under the SC/ST Act against the appellant.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has

vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and

submits that the appellant carries one criminal antecedent other
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1645 of 2022(5) dt.24-06-2025
3/4

than the present one and the appellant has fully participated in

the present crime in question.

7. After hearing the parties, in my view for the

purpose of this anticipatory bail, no offence under the provisions

of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is made out.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

that there is no specific allegation of assault or abuse against the

appellant and the occurrence in the second part of the F.I.R took

place in the house of the informant, so no case is made out

under the SC/ST Act against the appellant, let the appellant,

above named, in the event of his arrest to surrender before the

Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of

receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on

furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two

surities of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

Court of 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge cum Special

Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnia in ABP No. 29 of 2022 arising out of

Barhara P.S. Case No. 68 of 2022, subject to the conditions as

laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 and with other following conditions:-

i. Appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1645 of 2022(5) dt.24-06-2025
4/4

properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court

and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and

on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the

witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to

move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall

verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at

any stage it is found that the appellant has concealed his

criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the

acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

verification.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and

this appeal stands allowed.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-

U      T