Patna High Court – Orders
Siyaram Ray vs The State Of Bihar on 13 May, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3949 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2023 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
SIYARAM RAY son of Baleshwar Rai R/o- Bahadurpur W.No-29, Madhuri
Chowk Ps- Town Thana Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Babita Devi wife of Surendra Mahto R/o- Jitwaria Dharampur Kalyanpur
Ps- Kalyanpur Thana, District- Samastipur, Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 13-05-2025
Heard Mr.Piyush Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for
the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
Mr.Sadanand Paswan, 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 21.07.2023 in A.B.P. No.2250 of 2023 passed by
the learned Special Judge, Samastipur (SC/ST (POA) Act in
connection with Samastipur Town P.S.Case No. 62 of 2023
corresponding to G.R.No.327/2023 registered under Sections
406,420,120B,467,468/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as
under Sections 3(1)(R)(S)of the Scheduled Castes and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3949 of 2023(5) dt.13-05-2025
2/5
Scheduled Tribes Act.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on
14.03.2020 at about 10:00 A.M informant was returning her
home. Appellant alongwith co-accused Ashok Kumar abused the
informant by saying “Bhosri Pasiniya” how dare that she
demanded money and asked they will not give money even a
single rupee and threatened her to flee away. On raising alarm,
people from nearby started gathering then accused persons ran
away. Dispute arose between informant and accused persons is
that she has purchased 7-Dhur land from appellant Siyaram Ray
by registered sale-deed and when she started construction on
purchased land, Anchal Aamin prevented her by saying that land
purchased by her is actually land for way (Raasta) then
informant informed the accused and demanded to refund money
and occurrence took place.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the appellant has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the
appellant has produced a money receipt of respondent No.2
dated 03.05.2019 which suggests that the respondent No.2 has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3949 of 2023(5) dt.13-05-2025
3/5
received the more consideration amount from the appellant on
03.05.2019 itself and she has also sworn the same on the stamp
paper stating therein that she has received the amount from the
appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
in view of the aforesaid, it transpired that the appellant had
already returned the more consideration amount to respondent
No.2 on 03.05.2019 itself.
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 appellant and submits that it
transpired from the FIR/complaint petition that the appellant has
received the amount in question from respondent No.2 as he has
not paid the same as yet
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. Considering the aforesaid facts, appellant has
clean antecedent and appellant has produced a money receipt
of respondent No.2 dated 03.05.2019 which suggests that the
respondent No.2 has received the more consideration amount in
question from the appellant in 2019 itself, let the appellant,
above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3949 of 2023(5) dt.13-05-2025
4/5
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
Special Judge, Samastipur (SC/ST (POA) Act in connection
with Samastipur Town P.S.Case No. 62 of 2023, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 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 his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3949 of 2023(5) dt.13-05-2025
5/5delayed 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
[ad_1]
Source link