The Patna High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of an anticipatory bail application. The court held that allegations of caste-based offences under Section 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act rendered the bail prayer non-maintainable.
The appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3922 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2018 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajeev Nayan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari-1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER
6 13-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated 27.07.2019 in A.B.P.No.1023 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Nawada in connection with Rajauli P.S.Case No.274 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3922 of 2019(6) dt.13-12-2019 2/3
2018 under Sections 147, 341, 323, 354(A), 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(r) (s)of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Allegation of commission of assault against appellants Sudhir Yadav and Vikash Yadav @ Vikash Kumar is specific in the FIR whereas allegation against others is general and omnibus that they, variously armed, were members of the unlawful assembly and committed abuse by taking caste name of the informant.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are not co-villagers of the informant, therefore, it cannot be assumed that they had knowledge of the caste of the informant or other persons. Moreover, the offences alleged are not made out against the appellants.
Since FIR itself contains that the accused persons were taking caste name of the informant’s family member, it would be presumed that they had knowledge. Though allegation against some of the appellants is general and omnibus but the allegation of commission of offence under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is there, hence this application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable in view of the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Scheduled Caste
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3922 of 2019(6) dt.13-12-2019 3/3
and Scheduled Tribes Act. The learned Special Judge has also considered this aspect of the matter.
Hence, this appeal has got no merit. Accordingly, this
appeal stands dismissed.
(Birendra Kumar, J)
B.Kr./- U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the prayer for anticipatory bail in a cast-based assault case is maintainable under the bar of Sections 18 and 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Whether general and omnibus allegations in the FIR against some appellants preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether the appellants' lack of being co-villagers negates the presumption of knowledge of the victim's caste status under the Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sudhir Yadav and 5 others
The State of Bihar
Birendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
