IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4550 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2025 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== 1. Vivek Singh @ Vivek Kumar S/O Chunchun Singh Resident of village- Bhatkhora Musharniya Rahi, Ward No.- 06, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura 2. Bittu Sah @ Amit Kumar S/O Shiv Narayan Sah Resident of village- Bhatkhora Musharniya Rahi, Ward No.- 06, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Mani Rishidev S/O Phoolchand Rishidev Resident of village- Jeetapur, Ward No.- 01, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Barun Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 13-08-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1. 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 25.9.2025 in A.B.P. No. 1129 of 2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Madhepura in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025, registered for the offences Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4550 of 2025(4) dt.13-08-2026 2/3 punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. 3. The notice is validly served. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that on 14.3.2025 he was coming back home, when in the market the informant honked, on which Vivek and Ratandeep assaulted him causing injury on head and Bittu along with 15 unknown accused also assaulted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges that he honked as such the appellants became enraged and assaulted him, but then it is submitted that the informant dashed the appellants by his bike on account of which an altercation took place. It is further submitted that the informant does not allege that he was abused. It is also submitted that even injury suffered by the informant has been opined to be simple in nature and that perhaps explains why the order impugned does not record the injury when the learned district court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the appellants had perused the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4550 of 2025(4) dt.13-08-2026 3/3 case diary. 6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellants above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. Sumit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U