Disposed¶26

Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Dec 2025CR. APP (SJ)/2272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; refusal of anticipatory bail; appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act 1989; Section 18 SC/ST Act bar; cognizance taken; omnibus and general allegations; occurrence inside informant's house not in public view; no CCTV footage produced in investigation; caste-name abuse; Bahadurpur P.S. Case No.80 of 2024 Patna; Sections 341 323 354 379 504 506 34 IPC; Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act; no coercive action order dated 08.08.2024; surrender direction 07.01.2026; Patna High Court; Satyavrat Verma, J.; Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2272 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; appellants directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court on 07.01.2026, with the Trial Court to dispose of the appeal on the same day in view of the no-coercive-action order dated 08.08.2024 and the absence of any prior arrest endeavour.

Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, arraigned in Bahadurpur P.S. Case No.80 of 2024 with allegations characterised as general and omnibus and unsupported by any CCTV footage, are entitled to anticipatory bail. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellants to surrender before the learned Trial Court on 07.01.2026, and the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the appeal on the same day, keeping in mind that this Court by order dated 08.08.2024 had granted no coercive action and prior to that the police made no endeavour to arrest the appellants.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Court was prima facie convinced with the arguments of the appellants' counsel, and the learned Special P.P., after perusing the case diary, was not in a position to rebut the submission that no CCTV footage was produced before the police during the course of investigation.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Satyavrat Verma, J.), order dated 18-12-2025 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2272 of 2024: an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 against refusal of anticipatory bail by order dated 22.04.2024 of the Exclusive Special Court, SC/ST Act, Patna, in Bahadurpur P.S. Case No.80 of 2024 registered under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379, 504, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Appellants, said to have clean antecedents, urged that the allegations of abuse and assault were general and omnibus, that the occurrence took place inside the informant's house and not in public view, and that although the occurrence was alleged to have been recorded on CCTV, no footage surfaced during investigation. The Court was prima facie convinced with these submissions; the learned Special P.P., while contending that cognizance had been taken and that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail, could not rebut, after perusing the case diary, the absence of any CCTV footage. The appeal was disposed of with a direction to the appellants to surrender before the learned Trial Court on 07.01.2026, the Trial Court to dispose of the appeal the same day, bearing in mind the no-coercive-action order dated 08.08.2024 and that the police had made no endeavour to arrest the appellants prior thereto.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2272 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2024 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Kumar S/o- Late Raghunath Prasad Nand Nagar Colony Ps-Bahadurpur Dist- Patna

¶5

Akash Kumar son of Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Kumar Nand Nagar Colony Ps-Bahadurpur Dist- Patna

¶6

... ... Appellant/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Pintu Rajak son of Late Lallu Rajak Nand Nagar Colony Ps-Bahadurpur Dist- Patna

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dwij Raj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special P.P. ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶14

4 18-12-2025

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

¶16

Special P.P. for the State.

¶17

This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.04.2024, passed by learned Exclusive Special Court, SC/ST Act, Patna in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No.80 of 2024, registered under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2272 of 2024(4) dt.18-12-2025 2/4

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 20.02.2024 at 10:30 p.m., the accused persons including the appellants came along with unknown accused and abused by taking caste name and destroyed the household articles, further the informant and his family members concealed themselves in a room as the accused had come to kill the informant, further entire occurrence was recorded in the CCTV, it is also alleged that when informant came out of the house, he was assaulted and accused fled with Rs.45,000/- and ornament worth Rs.5,000/-

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the allegation of assault and abuse is general and omnibus in nature and the entire occurrence took place at the house of the informant and thus was not in public view. It is also submitted that though it is alleged that entire occurrence was recorded in the CCTV but then during the course of investigation, no CCTV footage came to the fore or else the same would have been recorded in the case diary. It is next submitted that the case

¶21

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2272 of 2024(4) dt.18-12-2025 3/4

¶22

initially was taken up on 08.08.2024 when this Court had granted no coercive action against the appellants until the appeal is finally adjudicated by this Court and the FIR was instituted on 22.02.2024, it is further submitted that from 22.02.2024 till 07.08.2024, the police did not make any endeavor to arrest the appellants as the allegation was not inspiring confidence but then in a mechanical manner chargesheet came to be submitted based on which cognizance has been taken and thus appellants apprehend their arrest. It is submitted that since there is no specific allegation of abuse and assault against the appellants hence, appellants be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶23

The Court prima facie was convinced with the arguments made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants but the learned Special P.P. submits that since cognizance has been taken, as such, a prima facie case is made out and Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail application, but then after perusing the case diary the learned Special P.P. is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that no CCTV footage during the course of investigation was produced before the police.

¶24

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the

¶25

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2272 of 2024(4) dt.18-12-2025 4/4

¶26

appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellants to surrender before the learned Trial Court on 07.01.2026 and the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the appeal on the same day keeping in mind the fact that this Court after hearing the appellants by order dated 08.08.2024 had granted no coercive action and prior to that police made no endeavor to arrest the appellants.

¶27

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶28

Sanjay/-

¶29

U T

Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Kumar 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

Pawan Sahni @ Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Saw @ Sanjay Sao Vs The State of Bihar

Lakshman Yadav @ Lakshman Yadva Vs The State of Bihar

Md Gufran Vs The State of Bihar

Ajit Jha @ Ajit Kumar Jha @ Ajeet Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Mahesh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar