SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3708

PATNA HIGH COURT
PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J
BINDU DEVI W/O CHANDAN YADAV – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.776 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra
For the Respondents: Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, SPP

The court determined the lack of specific allegations warranted granting bail, emphasizing the necessity for substantial claims under the SC/ST Act.

Headnote:The appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 14.12.2023, denying anticipatory bail under various sections of the IPC and SC/ST Act. The court found that allegations against the appellant were vague with no specific overt act and determined that a case under the SC/ST Act was not substantiated (Para 3-5). The primary issue examined was whether the allegations met the threshold for denying bail, with the court concluding that the appellant's clean history and the nature of allegations warranted bail (Para 7). Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the prior order set aside, permitting the appellant release on bail (Final Statement).

Table of Content
1. allegations lack specificity regarding appellant. (Para 4)
2. court weighs appellant's clean antecedent against accusations. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court grants bail based on insufficient evidence. (Para 7 , 8)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

4 29-01-2026 Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special P.P. for of the State.

3. This appeal has been filed against the order dated

14.12.2023 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST of 2023, registered under Sections 341 , 323, 324, 307, 379, 504/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 (i)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short “SC/ST Act”), whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of appellant has been rejected.

4. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this appellant along with other accused persons committed mar-pit with the informant and abused taking caste name.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is general and omnibus allegation levelled against the appellant. No specific allegation of overt act has been attributed to the appellant. From perusal of F.I.R., it is apparent that there is no allegation of abuse taking caste name, hence, no case of SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. Appellant is only alleged to be order giver and is also alleged to have snatched silver jewellery from the informant which is superficial in nature. Doctor has found injuries to be simple in nature. Appellant claims clean antecedent.

6. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the appeal of the appellant.

7. However, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and clean antecedent, the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 is, hereby, set aside and this criminal appeal is allowed.

8. Let the appellant, as named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran at Chapra, in (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

khushbu/- U T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top