Allowed¶22

Pritam Kumar Singh@ Pritam Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Jun 2025CR. APP (SJ)/934/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cognizance order set aside; appeal allowed; cognizance differing with police final form; SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai, SC/ST P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024; IPC Sections 341, 323, 379, 420, 504, 506/34; SC/ST Act Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va); case diary paragraphs 2, 5, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 60; witnesses in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 60 did not support prosecution case; appellant's counsel contended false case out of Pramukh Election rivalry; informant O.P. No. 2 absent despite summons; Judge Nawneet Kumar Pandey; decided 16-06-2025; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside of the cognizance order dated 07-12-2024 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai in SC/ST P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024. ¶22

Pritam Kumar Singh@ Pritam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Setting aside of the cognizance order dated 07-12-2024 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai in SC/ST P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned court below was justified in taking cognizance against the appellant under Sections 341, 323, 379, 420, 504, 506/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, differing with the investigating authorities who had submitted final form, when witnesses relied upon did not support the prosecution case.

¶17

Court's answer

The impugned order shows that the court below formed its opinion for issuance of summons on the basis of statements of witnesses recorded in paragraphs 2, 5, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 60 of the case diary.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The witnesses whose statements were recorded in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 60 of the case diary did not support the prosecution case.

¶21

Key takeaways

Considering these facts and circumstances, the order dated 07-12-2024 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai in SC/ST P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 is set aside and the present appeal is allowed.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.), Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.934 of 2025, decided 16-06-2025 — Allowed. Appeal against cognizance order dated 07-12-2024 of the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai in SC/ST P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024, whereby cognizance was taken against the appellant and other accused under Sections 341, 323, 379, 420, 504, 506/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, differing from the investigating authorities who had submitted final form after finding no prima facie material against the appellant. The cognizance/summons opinion rested on case diary statements in paragraphs 2, 5, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 60, but the witnesses in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 60 did not support the prosecution case. On that basis the High Court set aside the order and allowed the appeal; the informant (O.P. No. 2), though summoned, had none appearing on her behalf.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.934 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Begusarai

¶3

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

¶4

Pritam Kumar Singh@ Pritam Kumar Son of Girish Ray R/o- Near Near Durga Mandir W.No-3, Gaura-1, Po- Gaura Ps- Phulwaria Dist- Begusarai

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

Bindu Devi W/o- Raj Kumar Chaudhary @ Bulay Chaudhary R/o- W.No-11, Kirtaul Ps- Teghra Dist- Begusarai

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ankur Govind For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 16-06-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

¶14

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 07-12-2024 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai in SC/ST P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 whereby and whereunder, the learned court below has taken cognizance against the appellant and other accused persons under Sections-341, 323, 379, 420, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections-3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the informant was the contestant of Pramukh Election and

¶16

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.934 of 2025(4) dt.16-06-2025 2/3

¶17

due to election rivalry, the present false and frivolous case has been lodged. He has further submitted that the investigating authorities submitted final form against the appellant as during investigation, no prima facie material was found against him but differing with the opinion of the investigating authorities, the learned court below has taken cognizance under the above mentioned sections of the IPC as well as under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order itself shows that it has been passed without considering the materials, available on the record. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the statements of witnesses recorded in paragraphs-2, 5, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 60 of the case diary but the witnesses, whose statements have been recorded in paragraphs-25, 26, 27 & 60 of the case diary, did not support the case of the prosecution and they have categorically stated that the informant has lodged this false and frivolous case against the appellant.

¶18

The summons have been issued to the informant (O.P. No. 2) but none appeared on her behalf.

¶19

The impugned order shows that the court below formed his opinion for issuance of summons on the basis of statements of witnesses recorded in paragraphs- 2, 5, 16, 24, 25,

¶20

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.934 of 2025(4) dt.16-06-2025 3/3

¶21

26, 27 and 60 of the case diary but the witnesses whose statements have been recorded in pararaphs-25, 26, 27 & 60 of the case diary, did not support the prosecution case.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 07-12-2024 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai in SC/ST P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 is set aside and accordingly, the present appeal is allowed .

¶23

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶24

A.K.V.//-

¶25

U T

Pritam Kumar Singh@ Pritam Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Kumar Singh@ Pritam 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

Om Prakash Singh @ Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jokhu Prasad @ Jakhu Prasad @ Jitendra Prasad @ Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjan Kumar @ Dudhnath Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Kunal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Anzarul Sahara @ Anjarul Haque Sahara Vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar