Bail appeal dismissed — High Court of Judicature at Patna, CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1122 of 2025, decided 24-07-2025 by Chandra Prakash Singh, J (sole member of coram). Appeal by Kalim Miya @ Md. Kalim Khan @ Md. Kalim under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against rejection of his bail prayer vide order dated 14.02.2025 of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Madhepura, in Gwalpara P.S. Case No. 148 of 2024 (printed as dated 08.09.2023), registered for offences under Sections 126, 127(2), 103(1), 109 read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act. Prosecution case: on 05.08.2024 at 9.15 A.M. the informant, going to school on a motorcycle, was intercepted by two persons on a Splendor motorcycle and the pillion rider fired a pistol at him, the bullet hitting the right side of the stomach and exiting from the back; per the case-diary narrative urged by the State and respondent no. 2, the victim (referred to as 'Vinod Master'/'Binod Master') died during treatment, and confessional statements of witnesses/co-accused Shivam Kumar and Manish Thakur (paras 81 and 84 of the case diary) allege a conspiracy to kill him for Rs. 1.5 lakh (one lakh fifty thousand rupees), naming Kaleem/Kalim Miyan as party to the deal, with one lakh rupees stated to have been taken from Anil Kumar Bharti and Roshan Kumar at Phulwari. Appellant's counsel argued that the appellant is innocent, was not named in the F.I.R., surfaced only through the confessional statement of co-accused Manish Thakur, is 'only a mediator', and that no allegation of abusing exists against him so no SC/ST Act offence is made out; appellant in custody since 24.11.2024 with six criminal antecedents (acquitted in one case); the co-accused's regular bail had already been rejected by this Court on 15.05.2025 in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1156/2025. Holding: considering the heinous nature of the allegation against the appellant, the judge was not inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2025; the appellant's prayer for bail was rejected, and the learned trial court was directed to conclude the trial at the earliest.
