IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3488 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-303 Year-2020 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran ======================================================

Sanjit Rai @ Sanjiv Kumar Son of Ravindra Rai Resident Of Village -

Paguraho kuraiyan, Ps- Dighwara, Dist- Saran at Chapra ... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Chandrama Paswan Son of Late Sheo Paswan Resident Of Village -

Paguraho kuraiyan, Ps- Dighwara, Dist- Saran at Chapra ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL ORDER

5 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter in short referred to as the SC/ST Act) against the refusal of prayer of bail vide order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court, of 2020 registered for the offences punishable u/s 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

3. As per the prosecution case, some dispute arose over transaction of money between the son of the informant (deceased) and his co-villagers namely Pradeep Rai, Jitesh Rai, Amarjit Rai and Sanjit Rai. All the named accused had threatened his son to kill. It is alleged that on 10.12.2020 at about 09:30 A.M all the four named accused persons took away the son of the informant to Diara but thereafter the son of the informant did not return.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that from the F.I.R., it is evident that the informant has only raised a suspicion and in fact, he was not sure on whose call he went out from his house in the morning of 10.12.2020 but did not return and his dead body was found on 12.12.2020 but in the meantime, no complaint has been filed. It is also submitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. However, during the course of investigation, co- accused Jitesh Rai was apprehended and his confession has been recorded by the Police and he disclosed the name of the appellant and others. The appellant has two criminal antecedents as stated at para 3 of the bail petition. The appellant is in custody since 17.10.2023. It is submitted that Jitesh Rai who is named in the FIR has already been granted privilege of regular bail by the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.

APP(SJ) No. 1857 of 2021.

5. Learned Spl.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there being no eye witness to the occurrence and the co- accused who is named in the FIR have already been granted bail and the period of custody, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 is set aside.

7. Accordingly, the above named appellant, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special No. 303 of 2020.

(Ansul, J)

Siddharth Soni/-

U T