Guddan Kumar @ Guddan Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.803 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2024 Thana- THAWE District- Gopalganj

¶3

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

¶4

Guddan Kumar @ Guddan Chaudhary S/o Jai Prakash Chaudhary R/o Village- Pandit Ke harpur, PS- Thawe, Dist- Gopalganj

¶5

Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Chaudhary S/o Jai Prakash Chaudhary R/o VillagePandit Ke harpur, PS- Thawe, Dist- Gopalganj

¶6

Sashikant Singh S/o Vijay Singh R/o Village- Pandit Ke harpur, PS- Thawe, Dist- Gopalganj

¶7

Sidhu Kumar Singh S/o Shashi Kant Kumar Singh @ Shashi Kant Singh R/o Village- Pandit Ke harpur, PS- Thawe, Dist- Gopalganj

¶8

Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Jitendra Singh S/o Vijay Singh R/o Village- Pandit Ke harpur, PS- Thawe, Dist- Gopalganj

¶9

... ... Appellant/s

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Bihar

¶12

Shobha Devi S/o Suresh Ram R/o vill - Naya tola, Sihorawa, P.S.- Thawe, Distt.- Gopalganj

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

4 30-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

¶17

Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶18

2 . This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.12.2024 passed in A.B.P. No. 2884/2024 by learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-XI-cum-Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST(PoA Act), Gopalganj in connection with

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.803 of 2025(4) dt.30-10-2025 2/5

¶20

Thawe P.S. Case No. 125 of 2024 dated 18.05.2024 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 354, 379, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶21

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant and one Rashmuni Devi purchased the land from the co-accused Jay Prakash Chaudhary and consideration money was settled to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs and both were ready to pay Rs. 7.5 lacs each and they paid Rs. 9 lacs 10 thousand to the appellants but they demanded all the amount of consideration money. Thereafter, the informant and Rashmuni Devi paid the rest amount to the co-accused namely Jay Prakash Chaudhary and Vijay Singh in presence of villagers. When the informant told the co-accused Jay Prakash Chaudhary for execution of the sale deed then he refused to do registry of the land. Thereafter, the informant called a Panchayati then the co-accused persons refused to make registry of the said land. On 17.05.2024, the appellants and the co-accused persons armed with weapons came to the door of the informant and abused her by calling her caste name. When the informant portested, all the accused persons started assaulting her and her family members. The co-accused Jay Prakash

¶22

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.803 of 2025(4) dt.30-10-2025 3/5

¶23

Chaudhary snatched golden mangalsutra from the informant. Thereafter, nearby people came there and saved them. It is further alleged that the accused person threatened the informant that they would not return her money if she would lodge any case.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Bimla Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar and others (Special Leave Petition (CRL.) Nos. 834-835 of 2023) wherein at para 10, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “ we would reiterate that the process of criminal law cannot be utilized for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail.” 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 appellants. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has specifically stated in the F.I.R. that entire amount of consideration money has been paid to the appellants in the presence of the villagers but there is no any evidence on record to show that the appellants have taken the money from them. Neither the khata number and plot

¶25

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.803 of 2025(4) dt.30-10-2025 4/5

¶26

number has been mentioned in the F.I.R. nor any agreement paper has been prepared by her regarding the purchase of the said land so the matter is of civil dispute between them. The appellants have no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The co-accused person has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal(S.J.) No. 3290 of 2024.

¶27

5 . Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Spl.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants.

¶28

6 . In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed in A.B.P. No. 2884/2024 by learned Court of Additional Sessions JudgeXI-cum-Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST(PoA Act), Gopalganj in connection with Thawe P.S. Case No. 125 of 2024, is set aside against the appellants. The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶29

7 . Accordingly, the above named appellants, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/(Rupees twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court of

¶30

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.803 of 2025(4) dt.30-10-2025 5/5

¶31

Additional Sessions Judge-XI-cum-Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST(PoA Act), Gopalganj in connection with Thawe P.S. Case No. 125 of 2024, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with further condition:-

¶32

(i) The appellants are directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the appellants are liable to be cancelled.

¶33

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶34

shivam/-

¶35

U T

Guddan Kumar @ Guddan Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddan Kumar @ Guddan Chaudhary 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Ankit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Chhotu @ Sumit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sardar Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Kundan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar