IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3176 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2024 Thana- Lalamnia District- Madhubani ======================================================

1. Ram Kumar Sah S/o- Mahadeo Sah R/o - Mansapur, P.S - Ladania, District -

Madhubani

2. Lalita Devi W/o- Ram Kumar Sah R/o - Mansapur, P.S - Ladania, District -

Madhubani

3. Madhuri Kumari @ Madhwi Kumari D/o- Ram Kumar Sah R/o - Mansapur, P.S - Ladania, District - Madhubani

4. Rishu Kumar @ Rishu Kumar Sah S/o- Ram Kumar Sah R/o - Mansapur, P.S - Ladania, District - Madhubani ... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Savan Kumar Ram S/o- Santosh Ram R/o - Santnagar, P.S - Ladania, District - Madhubani ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl.PP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr.Gagandev Yadav, Advocate Mr.Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

5 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants; learned Spl.PP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. The appellants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Lalmania P.S. Case No. 66 of 2024 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351, 3(5) of the BNS; Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the appellants assaulted the informant and abused him by using his caste name while he was working at his house.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that appellants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged incident occurred due to business rivalry between the appellant no.1 and the informant, and that the appellant nos.2, 3 and 4, being the family members, have falsely been roped in the present case. The allegations made in the FIR are frivolous and concocted, and the appellants have neither assaulted nor abused the informant. Appellants have clean antecedents. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the allegation being general and omnibus, the appellants seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.

5. Per contra, Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav has tendered his appearance on behalf of O.P. No.2 and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail. Learned counsel submitted that informant has suffered considerably due to the acts of the appellants.

6. Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.PP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the FIR, I find it apposite, for proper appreciation of the rival contentions, to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and

3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which is, inter alia, as follows:

“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-

(1) (r) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.”

8. The term “any place within public view” initially came for consideration before the Apex Court in case of Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel & Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435. In the case of Hitesh Verms Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 the Apex Court had reiterated the legal position in paragraph no.14 which is as under :

“14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State[Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435