IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4241 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2025 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ======================================================

Raja Ram Chaudhary S/o- Rajeev Kumar Chaudhary, R/o Village -

Nagargama , PS - Dalsingsarai , District - Samastipur ... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Umesh Ray S/o- Ramlolin Ray, R/v- Ghat Nawada, PS- Dalsingsarai, Dist-

Samastipur ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Adv.

For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

3 23-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [in short the SC/ST (POA) Act] against the rejection of prayer for bail vide order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Samastipur in A.B.P. No. 1426 of 2025 in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 164 of 2025 registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126, 115(2), 109 and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section(s) 3(1)(r)

(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

3. The allegation against the appellant is that he along with four other named accused and 10-15 unknown persons came to the shop of the informant/respondent No. 2 and they refused to pay for the goods they purchased and, thereafter, they even took away the money kept in the locker and it is alleged that co-accused/Shubham Chaudhary not only abused the informant/respondent No. 2 with his caste name but had also assaulted him.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and at best, he can be said to be a member of the mob. It has been submitted that no specific allegation of any overt act has been alleged against the appellant. It has further been pointed out that it is the co-accused against whom it is alleged that he had refused from making payment and, thereafter, assaulted the informant/respondent No. 2. It has lastly been submitted that the appellant has two criminal antecedents, in which he is on bail.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the bail petition of the appellant and have submitted that the appellant was part of the mob and had approached the shop of the informant/respondent No. 2 and had even participated in abetting the crime.

6. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into account that there is no specific overt act against the appellant and that no case is made out against him for the offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, let the appellant, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on his/her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 164 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors of the appellant shall be his/her close relative and the other shall be a local resident.

(ii) The appellant shall remain physically present before t