Farmud Ansari vs The State Of Bihar on 21 August, 2025

0
3


Patna High Court – Orders

Farmud Ansari vs The State Of Bihar on 21 August, 2025

Author: Prabhat Kumar Singh

Bench: Prabhat Kumar Singh

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1513 of 2021
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
           1.     FARMUD ANSARI Son of Sakur Ansari Resident of Village - Barbas, P.S.
                  Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.
           2.    Abbas Ansari Son of Shabbir Ansari Resident of Village - Barbas, P.S.
                 Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.
           3.    Saimuddin Ansari @ Samuddin Son of Majid Ansari Resident of Village -
                 Barbas, P.S. Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.
           4.    Wajul Ansari Son of Ibrahim Ansari Resident of Village - Barbas, P.S.
                 Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.
           5.    Reyajul Ansari Son of Ibrahim Ansari Resident of Village - Barbas, P.S.
                 Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.

                                                                                     ... ... Appellant/s
                                                        Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Madan Baitha Son of Sobhit Baitha R/V- Karanhiya, P.S.- Sitamarhi , Dist-
                 Sitamarhi

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellants       :        Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                                   Ms. Divya Bharti, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   21-08-2025

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants

and learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on

behalf of the informant/Respondent No. 2.

3. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order

dated 29.02.2020 passed in a case registered for the offence

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 379, 354,

354B, 504, 394, 295, 295A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1513 of 2021(6) dt.21-08-2025
2/3

and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the

prayer for anticipatory bail of these appellants has been rejected.

4. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that all the

F.I.R. named accused persons, including these appellants,

assaulted informant and others and abused them by caste name.

It is further alleged that all the accused persons misbehaved with

the female inmates and looted ornaments.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants that appellants are quite innocent and

have committed no offence. There are general and omnibus

allegations and no specific accusation of overt act has been

alleged against these appellants. It is not the case of the

prosecution that any member of public was present at the place

of occurrence and as such, no case under the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out

against these appellants. It is further submitted that similarly

situated co-accused persons have already been granted the

privilege of anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.12.2020 passed in Cr. Appeal

(SJ) No. 1708 of 2020. Appellants claim clean antecedents.

6. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1513 of 2021(6) dt.21-08-2025
3/3

behalf of the State has vehemently opposed this appeal.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, general and omnibus nature of accusation, claim based on

parity and clean antecedents of the appellants, this appeal is

allowed and the impugned order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the

learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special

Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sitamarhi in connection with A.B.P. No.

388 of 2020/65 of 2020 arising out of Sitamarhi SC/ST P.S.

Case No. 44 of 2017 is hereby set aside with respect to these

appellants only.

8. Accordingly, let the appellants, named above, in the

event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged 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 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sitamarhi in connection with

Sitamarhi SC/ST P.S. Case No. 44 of 2017.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here