Rajnikant Kamkar @ Rajani Kant Singh Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1255 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2024 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar

¶3

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

¶4

Rajnikant Kamkar @ Rajani Kant Singh S/o- Ram Ishwar Kamkar Resident of Village- Pawani, P.S.- Buxar (M) District- Buxar

¶5

Chitranjan Kamkar @ Chitrangan Kumar S/o- Ram Ishwar Kamkar Resident of Village- Pawani, P.S.- Buxar (M) District- Buxar

¶6

Ram Ishwar Kamkar @ Rameshwar Singh S/o- Late Sudama Kamkar Resident of Village- Pawani, P.S.- Buxar (M) District- Buxar

¶7

Man Singh Kamkar @ Man Singh S/o- Gopak Kamkar Resident of VillagePawani, P.S.- Buxar (M) District- Buxar

¶8

... ... Appellant/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

Meena Devi W/o- Munna Gond Resident of Village- Pawani, P.S.- Buxar (M) District- Buxar

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P. For Resp. No.2 : Mr. Aatish Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

¶16

4 19-12-2025

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶18

This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act)-cum-1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Buxar in connection with Buxar Muffasil P.S. Case No.374 of 2024, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 190(1), 316(2), 352,

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1255 of 2025(4) dt.19-12-2025 2/4

¶20

318(4), 76, 351, 352, 331, 64 and 3(5) of the B.N.S and Section 3(1) (r) (s) and 2(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.

¶21

The allegation in the F.I.R. is that accused persons came to the house of the informant, being variously armed, hurled caste-based abuses and also indulged in assault. There is further allegation that female members of the accused persons pelted stones at the rooftop of the informant’s house, as a result of which certain tribal idols were vandalized.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that it would be apparent from the F.I.R itself that the occurrence had taken place at the door of the house of the informant as such there is no question of any public view and thus, provisions of SC/ST Act would not apply. It is further submitted that F.I.R discloses that there was a dispute with regard to drainage of water on account of which scuffle took place and case and counter case has also been filed by both the sides. The present F.I.R was lodged after delay of four days inasmuch as while occurrence had taken place on 31.10.2024 and F.I.R was lodged on 05.11.2024, for which no explanation has been tendered. Further, the injury suffered by the injured are also simple in nature, as such, offence under Section 109 of

¶23

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1255 of 2025(4) dt.19-12-2025 3/4

¶24

BNS would not be made out. The appellants have no criminal antecedent and undertake to co-operate in investigation/trial.

¶25

Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State as also learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant based upon the allegation made in the F.I.R, especially, allegation that idols of the tribal people were vandalized. In response, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the allegation of stone-pelting is general and omnibus, without any specific attribution or knowledge, and that such an act would not have caused damage to the idols allegedly kept on the rooftop. It is further submitted that the female members alleged to have pelted stones are not the appellants herein.

¶26

In view of the fact that occurrence had taken place inside the house which cannot be a public view, no offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act prima facie is made out against the appellants.

¶27

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that due to trivial dispute the occurrence took place, there is case and counter case coupled with the fact that injuries are simple in nature and there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R, let the

¶28

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1255 of 2025(4) dt.19-12-2025 4/4

¶29

appellants, above named, having no criminal antecedent in the event of their arrest to surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act)-cum-1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Buxar in connection with Buxar Muffasil P.S. Case No.374 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶30

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

¶31

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

¶32

Harsh/-

¶33

U T

Rajnikant Kamkar @ Rajani Kant Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnikant Kamkar @ Rajani Kant Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Pravesh Kumar @ Ram Prabhash Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Kishundev Mukhiya @ Kishundev Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Shushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Chandra Shekhar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sonalal @ Sonalal Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar