An appeal against the refusal of anticipatory bail in an SC/ST case involving offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order refusing bail, and granted bail to the appellants.
Impugned order refusing anticipatory bail set aside; appellants released on bail after surrender within six weeks.
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.1667 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2020 Thana- SC/ST District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari No.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER
4 21-12-2022
Office pointed out that notice has been validly served upon the respondent no.2, but nobody appears on her behalf.
This is an appeal under section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 12.01.2021, passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST) Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Muzaffarpur SC/ST P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1667 of 2021(4) dt.21-12-2022 2/3
no.05 of 2020, registered under sections 341, 323, 379, 380, 354, 420, 120(B) and 504/34 of the IPC and sections 3(1)(r)(s)& 3(2)(V)(a) of the SC and ST Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are quite innocent and have not committed any offence. They have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the appellants is rather general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific overt act against the appellants. There is an admitted land dispute between the parties, which is also clear from the complaint petition. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710, it is submitted that if there is a land dispute between the parties, the appeal for anticipatory bail is maintainable.
Learned Spl. PP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is a land dispute between the parties, let the appellants named above, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1667 of 2021(4) dt.21-12-2022 3/3
Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learnedSpecial Judge, (SC/ST) Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Muzaffarpur SC/ST P.S. Case no.05 of 2020, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
shikha/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal for anticipatory bail is maintainable in view of the existence of a land dispute between the parties.
Whether request to release the appellants from custody and grant them bail is permissible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & AnrReferred¶20
Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Punyadeo Singh
Mohan Singh
Vijay Singh
The State of Bihar
Sarswati Devi Hira Ram
Anjani Kumar Sharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
