Patna High Court – Orders
Rajdeo Mistry 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.3145 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-394 Year-2024 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
1. Rajdeo Mistry S/o- Rajendra Mistry @ Rajndra Mistry Village- Katesar
Chak PS-Bihta Dist- Patna
2. Sudhir Mistry @ Sudhir Kumar son of Biteshwar Mistry Village- Katesar
Chak PS-Bihta Dist- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lalan Paswan Son Ram Sebak Paswan Village- Katesar Chak PS-Bihta Dist-
Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 29-07-2025
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 as well as Ms. Usha Kumari 1, learned Spl.P.P.
for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated
15.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST, Patna in
connection with Bihta P.S. Case No.394 of 2024, F.I.R. dated
29.04.2024 registered under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 337,
307, 326, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (r) /
3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3145 of 2024(5) dt.29-07-2025
2/5
3. According to the prosecution case, on 29.04.2024 at
11:00 A.M., informant Lalan Paswan reported that villagers
Rajendra Mistri, Rajdev Mistri, Biteshwar Mistri, Anil Mistri,
Deepak Mistri, Hira Lal Kripal, Sudhir Kumar, and Ashok
Kumar attacked his family over a land dispute. They threw
bricks and stones, injuring Muti Chhdi Devi (breaking her teeth)
and 12-year-old Phul Kumari. An FIR was lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have clean antecedent and they have falsely been
implicated in the present case. From a bare perusal of F.I.R., it
appears that due to admitted land dispute, the present occurrence
had taken place. There is case and counter case between the
parties and in retaliation, the appellants have pelted stones upon
the informant and his family members. Learned counsel for the
appellants further submits that although, the appellants are
named in the F.I.R., but from a bare perusal of the F.I.R., it
appears that there is no specific allegation of any assault or
overt act attributed against the appellants rather there is general
and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons,
including the appellants. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3145 of 2024(5) dt.29-07-2025
3/5
reads as under:-
18. Therefore, 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 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.’
5. 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 appellants.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State as
well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants and
submits that the appellants are named in the F.I.R. and there is
direct and specific allegation against them that they along with
other co-accused persons have pelted stones upon the informant
and his family members.
7. After hearing the parties, in my view for the
purpose of this anticipatory bail, no offence under the provisions
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3145 of 2024(5) dt.29-07-2025
4/5
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is made out.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the appellants have clean antecedent, there is no specific
allegation of any assault or overt act attributed against all the
appellants rather there is general and omnibus allegations
against all the accused persons, including the appellants and
apart from that in the background of land dispute, no case is
made out under the SC/ST Act against the appellants, 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 Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST Act, Patna in connection
with Bihta P.S. Case No.394 of 2024, 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. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3145 of 2024(5) dt.29-07-2025
5/5reason, 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.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
sharun/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link