Allowed¶21

Wakil Rishidev v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Aug 2025CR. APP (SJ)/625/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Act allowed; bail-refusal order of Special Judge, Madhepura dated 28.01.2025 set aside; appellant Wakil Rishidev enlarged on bail Rs. 20,000 with two sureties; murder case u/s 302, 120B r/w 34 IPC, s.27 Arms Act, s.3(2)(v) SC/ST Act; Murliganj PS Case 366/2023, Madhepura; co-accused earlier bailed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) 1315/2024; custody since 11.12.2024; Justice Chandra Prakash Singh; Patna High Court; decided 07-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail-refusal order set aside; appellant directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.D.J. 1st-cum-Special Judge, Madhepura in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 366/2023. ¶21

Wakil Rishidev Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, whose prayer for bail was refused by the learned A.D.J. 1st-cum-Special Judge, Madhepura, is entitled to be enlarged on bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 366/2023, in this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

¶13

Court's answer

Finding substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 refusing bail and allowed the criminal appeal.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The appellant was directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.D.J. 1st-cum-Special Judge, Madhepura.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 625 of 2025, decided 07-08-2025 by Chandra Prakash Singh, J. Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 against refusal of bail (order dated 28.01.2025, A.D.J. 1st-cum-Special Judge, Madhepura) in Murliganj P.S. Case No. 366/2023 dated 04.09.2023, registered for offences punishable u/s 302, 120B read with section 34 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act and Sections 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. Prosecution alleged the appellant exhorted the co-accused to fire upon the informant's husband, who died. Counsel for the appellant urged false implication, that the specific allegation was against co-accused Pandav Kumar Yadav, that other co-accused were already released on bail (order dated 02.05.2024 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1315 of 2024), that no caste name was called by the appellant, absence of criminal antecedent, and custody since 11.12.2024; the Spl. P.P. opposed. Finding substance in the appellant's contentions, the Court set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and enlarged the appellant on bail of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.625 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2023 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura

¶3

====================================================== Wakil Rishidev S/o Late Raghuni Rishidev R/o Village- Chamgrah (Chamgarh), PS- Murliganj, District- Madhepura

¶4

... ... Appellant/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶7

Gunjan Devi W/o Late Arjun Rishidev R/o vill - Chamgarh, ward no. 7, P.s.Murliganj, Distt.- Madhepura

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv Mr.Kumari Rashmi, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Sp.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

5 07-08-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, however, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 is not present despite notice being validly served upon respondent no. 2.

¶13

2 . This is an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as the SC/ST Act) against the refusal of prayer of bail vide order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned A.D.J. 1st-cum-Special Judge, Madhepura in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 366/2023 dated 04.09.2023 registered for the offence/s punishable u/s 302, 120B read with section 34 of the Indian

¶14

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.625 of 2025(5) dt.07-08-2025 2/3

¶15

Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

¶16

3 . As per the prosecution case, the appellants and the co-accused persons are alleged to have come to the shop of the informant and abused the informant’s husband by calling his caste name. The villagers gathered at the site of altercation and in the meantime, the appellant, Wakil Yadav exhorted to gun down the informant’s husband upon which, the co-accused, Pandav Kumar Yadav along with his associate opened fire on the informant’s husband which hit his chest. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his injury in the course of treatment.

¶17

4 . Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. As per FIR, no member of public was present at the relevant point of time of the incident. The specific allegation is against the co-accused, Pandav Kumar Yadav. The appellant is only a order giver. The other co-accused persons have been granted bail by this court vide order dated 02.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1315 of 2024. Learned counsel has further submitted that no particular caste name has been called by the appellant hence no case is made out under SC/ST Act. The

¶18

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.625 of 2025(5) dt.07-08-2025 3/3

¶19

appellant has no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. The appellant is in custody since 11.12.2024.

¶20

5 . Learned Spl. P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

¶21

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as finding substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned A.D.J. 1st-cum-Special Judge, Madhepura in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 366/2023 is set aside against the appellant. The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶22

7. Accordingly, the above named appellant, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/(Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.D.J. 1st-cum-Special Judge, Madhepura in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 366/2023.

¶23

atul/-

¶24

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

Wakil Rishidev v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wakil Rishidev 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

Karan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bhola Sah @ Ranjan Kumar Gupta Vs The State of Bihar

Raunak Kumar @ Riski Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Shahnewaj @ Mohammad Shahnewaz @ Md. Sahnawaz Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar