IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1766 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Khagaria ====================================================== Vinod Sah S/O Ram Charan Sah R/O Village- Mahua Tol (Olapur Gangour), P.S- Gangour, Distt.- Khagaria. ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Meera Devi W/O Chandra Kishore Rajak R/O Village- Jahangira Sobhni, P.S- Gangour, Distt.- Khagaria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Special PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 16-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special P.P. for the State, Mr. Binay Krishna. 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 23.01.2025 in A.B.P. No. 87 of 2024 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, 1st cum-Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Khagaria in connection with Mahila (Khagaria) P.S. Case No. 04 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 354, 448 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of the SC/ST Act. 3. In view of the grounds taken in the limitation Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1766 of 2025(5) dt.16-07-2026 2/2 application delay of five days in filing the appeal is condoned, as such, I.A. No. 01 of 2026 is allowed. 4. At this stage, learned Special PP for the State submits that the case is of the year 2017 and the police after investigation finding the case to be true submitted charge sheet based on which cognizance came to be taken on 24.10.2021, but then it appears that the appellant at his leisure approached learned District Court in the year 2025 seeking anticipatory bail which came to be rejected by an order dated 23.01.2025, it is further submitted that after cognizance much water has flown. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned Special P.P, as such, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. 6. This appeal stands rejected. nitesh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T