Nepal Mahto @ Rabi Kishore Prasad Vs the State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1016 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2017 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai

======================================================

NEPAL MAHTO @ RABI KISHORE PRASAD SON OF NARENDRA MAHTO @ NARENDRA PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KARJAN MANOPUR, P.S. - BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶8

ANIL PASWAN SON OF BINDESHWARI PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BISHANPUR, P.S. - BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Yadav, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P. Mr.Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv. ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 23-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

¶13

This is an appeal under section 14(A) 2 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter in short referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 31.01.2024, passed by learned Spl. Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act, Begusarai, in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.46 of 2017, registered u/s 341, 323, 354, 504, 506, 379, 427/34 of the IPC and sections 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶14

Allegedly, all the accused persons including the

¶15

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1016 of 2024(3) dt.23-08-2024 2/3

¶16

appellants are said to have committed loot of crops of wheat from the field of the informant and plowed other two plots. On objection, they assaulted the informant and also abused him by taking his caste name.

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever taken place. Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case with frivolous allegation. He has no concern with the aforesaid occurrence. Allegation of assault levelled against the appellant is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is admitted land dispute between the parties and a title suit bearing Title Suit No.176 of 2009 is pending between them. 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. It is submitted that cognizance has been taken against the appellant. Appellant has no criminal antecedent and similarly situated co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order passed in Cr. App(SJ) No.3492 of 2023 dated 10.01.2024.

¶18

Learned Spl. PP for the State as well as learned counsel

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1016 of 2024(3) dt.23-08-2024 3/3

¶20

for the respondent no.2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that cognizance has been taken against the appellant and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bachu Das Vs. State of Bihar and others, since reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 471, anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), the appellant named above, in the event of his 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 Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Begusarai, in connection with Bhagalpur P.S. Case No.46 of 2017, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.

¶23

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)

¶24

pallavi/-

¶25

U T

Nepal Mahto @ Rabi Kishore Prasad v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nepal Mahto @ Rabi Kishore Prasad v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti Pandey @ Shanti Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Priti Sonam Vs The State of Bihar

Ashutosh Kumar Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Sikandar Sah @ Sikandar Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Mritunjay Singh @ Mritunja Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Akbar Khan Vs The State of Bihar