Rakesh Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Priyanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Special PP For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Ravi Nandan, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

Date : 17-07-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the informant/respondent no. 2 as well as learned Special PP for the State.

¶14

2 . The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated 17.01.2026 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Siwan in connection with Siwan (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2025 registered for the alleged offence under Sections 308(2), 308(4), 351(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the

¶15

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.637 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026 2/4

¶16

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶17

3 . As per the prosecution case, the appellant and other co-accused persons came to the house of the informant and hurled abuses. When the informant went outside, the coaccused abused her taking caste name and threatened her demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- as extortion money.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR has been instituted after delay of two days without any satisfactory explanation and it shows deliberation and afterthought. There is no specific allegation against the appellant and the allegations are general and omnibus against all the accused persons. Specific allegation of caste abuse is against co-accused and not against the appellant. Moreover, the appellant and the informant belong to the same caste and hence, no offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act could be made out against the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the witnesses examined during the investigation did not support the prosecution case and denied any such occurrence ever taking place. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has got four criminal antecedent and

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.637 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026 3/4

¶20

all these antecedent are of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act and the appellant is on bail in all such cases. Learned counsel further submits that, in fact, the son of the informant has been involved in supplying of illegal liquor and the appellant had been working as a driver with him but due to his activity, he left the job and for this reason, he has been implicated in this case as well as also made accused in other cases.

¶21

5. Learned Special PP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/respondent no. 2 oppose the submission made on behalf of the appellant.

¶22

6. Perused the record.

¶23

7 . Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the appellant and the respondent no. 2 belong to same caste and further considering the nonspecific and doubtful nature of allegation against the appellant, let the appellant above named, in the even of his arrest or surrender before the court concerned within a period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

¶24

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.637 of 2026 dt.17-07-2026 4/4

¶25

Siwan/court concerned in connection with Siwan (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down

¶26

under Section 482(2) of BNSS and other following conditions:

¶27

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the appellant.

¶28

(ii) The appellant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below.

¶29

8 . Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.01.2026