The court endorsed the grant of anticipatory bail by addressing the lack of public view in the incident and questioning the motivations behind the allegations.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

4 04-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Spl.

P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 28.08.2024 in A.B.P. No. 2175 of 2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajpur in connection with Mahnar P.S. Case No. 179 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 341, 354, 379, 308, 448, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 09.06.2024 at 08:30 PM, 15 named accused persons along with 20-25 unknown accused came and started abusing by taking caste name and Diwakar, Laxman and Nitesh came inside their house and Laxman dashed her on the ground while Diwakar and Nitesh assaulted by fatta causing injury on head, thereafter, Lalmuni Devi snatched her chain when she became unconscious, while Rajkamal and Shravan took away a box and accused assaulted her sister-in-law and daughter-in-law also.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no motive for the occurrence is alleged. It is further submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then the occurrence did not take place in public view as such the rigors of SC/ST is not attracted and the accused who are alleged to have assaulted have also been granted the privilege of regular bail.

5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the appeal.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellant above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)