The court determined that the absence of public view negates the applicability of the SC/ST Act in the given case.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

4 18-12-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special P.P. Mr. Sadanand Paswan. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2.

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 30.01.2025 in A.B.P. No. 2385 of 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Madhubani in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No.76/2024, registered under Sections 126 , 115(2), 76, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(5), 3(i)(r)

of the SC/ST Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from perusal of the office report dated 12.09.2025, it would manifest that the same records that the notice was validly served on respondent no.2. It is next submitted that respondent no.2 despite receiving notices chooses not to appear and contest. It is next submitted that appellant has antecedent of one case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with other sections. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that on 05.09.2024 at 12.30 P.M. while she was at her home, when the appellant came looking for his nephew and asked why her son had taken his nephew along with himself to Mumbai, on which, the informant denied and said that his nephew has not accompanied her son to Mumbai rather her son along with other persons whose name stands recorded in the FIR have gone to Mumbai, on which, the appellant got enraged and abused her by taking caste name and even dashed her on the ground and tore her clothes.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that 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 entire occurrence took place in the house of the informant and thus not in public view, as such, prima facie, no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant.

6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the order impugned is set aside. Let the appellant, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending 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 this appeal stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)