Patna High Court – Orders
Jayanti Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1059 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-491 Year-2023 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Jayanti Devi Wife Of Santosh Prasad
2. Kalawati Devi @ Manwati Devi Wife Of Gagarnath Prasad
Both Resident Of Village - Darahi Patti, P.S. - Minapur, District -
Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sita Devi Wife Of Raghu Paswan Resident Of Village - Koilwara, P.S. -
Minapur, District - Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 05-08-2025
Heard Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for
the appellants, Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and Ms.Usha Kumari 1, learned Spl.P.P. for
the State.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, against refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail
by order dated 04.01.2024 in A.B.P. No.4631 of 2023 passed by
the learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Muzaffarpur in
connection with Minapur P.S.Case No. 491 of 2023, dated
17.11.2023 registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 506,
354(B), 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1059 of 2024(3) dt.05-08-2025
2/4Sections 3(I)(r)(s),3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Act as amended 2014.
3. Allegation against the appellants is that they
caught hold the informant and co-accused person, namely,
Santosh Kumar assaulted to the informant by means of stick of
spade causing injury on her head.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellants have clean antecedent and they have falsely been
implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR itself that
there is specific allegation against the appellants rather
allegation against the appellants that they caught hold the
informant and co-accused person, namely, Santosh Kumar
assaulted to the informant. Learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the
present case due to reason that co-accused person, namely,
Santosh Kumar has filed a Complaint Case bearing Complaint
Case No.2893 of 2023 against the Officer-in-Charge of Minapur
Police Station, namely, Rajesh Baitha and the learned court
below has taken cognizance against the S.H.O. of Minapur
Police Station and others on 30.10.2023 and 30.11.2023
respectively and due to this reason the appellants have falsely
been implicated in the present case. Although the appellants are
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1059 of 2024(3) dt.05-08-2025
3/4named in the FIR but from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears
that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt-act
attributed against both the appellants and the injury report of the
informant suggests that the injury is simple in nature.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well
as learned Spl.P.P. for the State have vehemently opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants and submits that the
appellants are named in the FIR but fairly submits that there is
no specific allegation/acquisition against both the appellants as
alleged in the FIR.
6. After hearing the parties, in my view for the
purpose of this anticipatory bail, no offence under the provisions
of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is made out.
7. Hence, let the appellants, above named, in the
event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge SC/ST
(POA) Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Minapur P.S.Case
No. 491 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1059 of 2024(3) dt.05-08-2025
4/4482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions:-
(I) Appellants 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 appellants tamper 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 appellants and in case at
any stage, it is found that the appellants have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the appellants. 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.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T