IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3571 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1. INDU DEVI W/O SURAYDEV SHAHANI @ DHARMDEV SAHNI @ DHARMDEV MUKHIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BRAHMOTRA, P.S- LAUKAHA, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. 2. REKHA DEVI W/O INARDEV SHAHANI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BRAHMOTRA, P.S- LAUKAHA, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR 2. SAJJAN SADAY S/O LATE FAKIR SADAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BRAHMOTRA, P.S- LAUKAHA, DISTT.- MADHUBANI. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Subhash Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 07-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the Informant and learned Spl. P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Madhubani in ABP No. 1233 of 2024 in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 147, 148, 323, 341, 379, 504, 506, 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(i)/3(2)(va)/3(1)(r)/ 3(1)(w)(i)/3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons, because of trivial dispute, are said to have abused the informant Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3571 of 2024(3) dt.07-11-2025 2/3 by taking caste name. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case as there is general and omnibus allegation the appellants including the male members and no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out in this case. The main thrust of allegation is because of trivial dispute and not because of prosecution side belonging to the SC/ST community, therefore the application of the anticipatory bail is maintainable. He further relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1067 and in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. 5. Learned counsel for the State/Informant has opposed the prayer of the appellants. 6. From the reading of the entire complaint, it does not appear that offence has been committed against the informant on the ground that he is a member of SC/ST community. 7. In these circumstances, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Anr. (Supra) and in the case of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3571 of 2024(3) dt.07-11-2025 3/3 Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Supra), this application for grant of anticipatory bail is held to be maintainable. 8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and the facts of the case, this appeal is allowed and accordingly, the order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Madhubani in ABP No. 1233 of 2024 in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024, is hereby set aside. 9. Let the appellants, in the event of their arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Madhubani/concerned Court below in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the BNSS. Vikas/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U