This is an appeal against the rejection of the prayer for anticipatory bail. The High Court held that despite arguments regarding no specific involvement, the appellants are not inclined to be enlarged on bail and rejected their prayer.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
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.501 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-410 Year-2021 Thana- GAYA KOTWALI District- Gaya
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Manish Kumar No2 For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
Notice was validly served upon the respondent no.2
but nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the appellants undertakes to
remove the defects within four weeks.
This is an appeal under Section 14(a)(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.501 of 2022(3) dt.21-12-2022 2/3
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 of anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.01.2022 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gaya in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 410/2021 registered under Sections 302, 337, 338, 427, 504, 506, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have no concern with the aforesaid occurrence. There is no specific overt act against the appellants. There is specific overt act against the co-accused Mahesh Yadav who assaulted the deceased. The appellants have not named in the F.I.R.. They have been made accused on the basis of the confessional statement of the injured persons Chintu Kumar who took the name in his statement in para-7 of the case diary. Appellants have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of memo of appeal.
Learned Spl. PP for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submits that appellants were also member of the mob. Therefore, they do not deserve anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.501 of 2022(3) dt.21-12-2022 3/3
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the aforesaid appellants on anticipatory bail
in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 410/2021.
Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is
hereby rejected.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
ajay/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case under the SC/ST Act, 1989.
Whether the lack of specific overt acts against the appellants in the FIR warrants enlargement on anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Surendra Yadav and Others
The State of Bihar
Abhinav Kumar @ Lakki Kumar
Anjani Kumar Sharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
