Patna High Court – Orders
Md. Ansarul Haque vs The State Of Bihar on 29 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3273 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Md. Ansarul Haque SON OF LATE HASIBUNA HAQUE VILLAGE-
MILKI, PS- ARRAH TOWN, DIST- BHOJPUR
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. SUJEET KUMAR CHAUDHARY SON OF ETWARU CHAUDHARY
VILLAGE- CHOTIKI SANADIYA, PS- ARRAH MUFFASIL, DIST-
BHOJPUR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md Ataul Haque, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-07-2025
Heard Mr. Ataul Haque, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.P.P. for the
State.
2. Despite of enter appearance of vakalatnama on
behalf of respondent No.2, no one appears on behalf of
respondent No.2
3. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated
20.06.2024 passed by the learned Court of 1st Additional Session
Judge-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST, Patna, in connection with
SC/ST Case No.18 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 16.03.2024 registered
under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3(i) (r), 3(i) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3273 of 2024(4) dt.29-07-2025
2/5
Scheduled Tribes Act.
4. According to the prosecution case, on 04.01.2024,
while the complainant was returning home on his motorcycle
near Chakiya Mor, the appellant and co-accused stopped him,
abused him using caste-based slurs, assaulted him with fists and
slaps, and forcibly took Rs. 10,000/- from his pocket after he
mentioned land dealings.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant carries six more cases other than the present one but
all the cases are filed by the agnates of the appellant and
appellant is on bail in the pending matters. It appears from the
F.I.R. itself that due to admitted land dispute, the present
occurrence had taken place. In fact, the appellant has filed the
Complaint Case No.1505(c) of 2023 against the informant and
learned Court below after due consideration has taken
cognizance under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the
informant on 19.10.2023. Thereafter, the informant has filed the
present complaint petition, which was instituted as F.I.R on
16.03.2024. Apart from that in view of the judgment in the case
of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttrakhand & others reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 710, paragraph -18 which reads as under:-
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not
established merely on the fact that the informant is a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3273 of 2024(4) dt.29-07-2025
3/5member 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 such caste.
In the present case, the parties are litigating over
possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses
is against a person who claims title over the property. If
such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence
under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.’
6. Paragraph-18 of the aforesaid judgment and in the
background of the land dispute, no case is made out under
SC/ST Act against the appellant. Apart from that, the appellant
has already filed the complaint case against the informant and
informant, in retaliation, has filed the present F.I.R. only to
harass the appellant.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
8. 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.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the present occurrence had taken place due to admitted land
dispute and apart from that in the background of land dispute,
no case is made out under the SC/ST Act against the appellant,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3273 of 2024(4) dt.29-07-2025
4/5
let the appellant, above named, in the event of arrest or
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 sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Court of Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Patna, in
connection with SC/ST Case No.54 of 2023, 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
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their 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 their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3273 of 2024(4) dt.29-07-2025
5/5cancellation 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.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
sharun/-
U T