IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2679 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2024 Thana- MAHKAR District- Gaya ====================================================== 1. Rinku Devi W/o Guddu Raut R/o VILLAGE-SAGARPUR,P.S.- MAHKAR, DIST.- GAYA 2. Abhishek Kumar S/o Guddu Raut R/o VILLAGE-SAGARPUR,P.S.- MAHKAR, DIST.- GAYA 3. Abhinash Kumar S/o Guddu Raut R/o VILLAGE-SAGARPUR,P.S.- MAHKAR, DIST.- GAYA ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar Bihar 2. Gayatri Devi W/o Sharwan Kumar R/o VILLAGE-SAGARPUR,P.S.- MAHKAR, DIST.- GAYA ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Prithivi Raj Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1, Spl. P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 04-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl. P.P. 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 referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 09.05.2024 in A.B.P. No. 142 of 2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T., Gaya in connection with Mahkar P.S. Case No. 65 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 and 34 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2679 of 2024(4) dt.04-11-2025 2/3 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 (i) (r) (s), 3 (2) (v-a) of the SC/ST Act. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent, who is a representative of Mukhiya was present at her house on 23.03.2024 when she allegedly heard abuses being hurled in her name. On coming outside, she found the appellants abusing her by taking caste name and threatening her with dire consequences. It is further alleged that the appellants assaulted her with ‘tangi’ though she managed to evade the blow. Another allegation is that the appellants snatched and took away her golden chain. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is contended that the occurrence took place on 23.03.2024 whereas the FIR was lodged on 25.03.2024. It is further submitted that the nature of allegation general and omnibus. Additionally, it is argued that the alleged place of occurrence is the house of the respondent which cannot be treated as an open place or public place. It is also pointed out that no injury has been caused to anyone. 5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the appeal. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2679 of 2024(4) dt.04-11-2025 3/3 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the order dated 09.05.2024 in A.B.P. No. 142 of 2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, in connection with Mahkar P.S. Case No. 65 of 2024 is hereby set aside and the appellants above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds 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 Mahkar P.S. Case No. 65 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS. 6. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed. Jagdish/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T