Appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in a case of fatal assault and caste abuse during a dog quarrel. The High Court found the allegations specific and heinous, declined to interfere with the order rejecting bail, dismissed the appeal, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest.
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.487 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2024 Thana- BHELDI District- Saran
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Pandey Son of Ram Karan Pandey village- Rampura, PsBheldi, Dist- Saran
... ... Appellant/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the rejection of prayer of bail of the appellant vide order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST Court, Chapra at Saran in connection with Bheldi P.S. Case No. 343/2024 dated 31.10.2024 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 352, 103(2) read with Section 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.487 of 2025(6) dt.07-08-2025 2/4
3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 30.10.2024 at 8 PM, the informant was at her house and one Chandan Manjhi was roaming around with his dog. The appellant came alongwith his dog in the dalit area. On seeing the dog of Chandan Manjhi, he untied his dog and charged the dog at the dog of Chandan Manjhi, both the dogs started quarreling with each other. On protest by Chandan Manjhi then the coaccused, Guddu Tiwari came there and started abusing him by taking his caste name. The co-accused, Guddu Tiwari called his brother Santosh Kumar Pandey along with his relatives who came armed with lathi, farsa, iron rod and katta started abusing by taking caste name. The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Pandey armed with farsa assaulted Vishkarma Manjhi on his head due to which his head got cut and blood started oozing out and he fell unconscious. The co-accused Guddu Pandey assaulted Upendra Manjhi on his head with iron rod but he saved but fingers got ruptured and the co-accused, Vicky Tiwary assaulted Santosh Majhi on his legs due to which he got injured. When Renu Devi came to save his brother-in-law, then all the accused persons assaulted her with legs, fist, rods and bricks due to which she sustained injury and was disrobed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.487 of 2025(6) dt.07-08-2025 3/4
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no member of public was present at the relevant point of time of the incident and hence, no offence under provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. There is a delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. The other co-accused person has already been granted regular bail by this court vide order dated 08.05.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 362 of 2025. It is further submitted that the appellant has no concern with the alleged offence. The appellant has no criminal antecedents as stated in para 12 of the bail petition. The appellant is in custody since 01.11.2024.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by submitting that the specific allegation of assaulting Vishkarma Manjhi is against the appellant due to which he died.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the specific and heinous nature of the allegation against the appellant, I am not inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST Court, Chapra at Saran in connection with Bheldi P.S. Case No. 343/2024 and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected and learned court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.487 of 2025(6) dt.07-08-2025 4/4
below is directed to conclude the trial of the appellant at the earliest.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
atul/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant's bail should be granted despite specific allegation of a fatal assault in a caste-atrocity case.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Santosh Kumar Pandey
The State of Bihar
Phuljari Kuar
Chandra Prakash Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
