IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5223 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2023 Thana- SC/ST District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1. DARESHI PANDIT @ RAM DARESHI PANDIT S/O BUDHAN PANDIT R/O VILLAGE- TURKAULIYA, WARD NO. 9, P.S- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. 2. BIRENDRA PANDIT S/O DARESHI PANDIT @ RAM DARESHI PANDIT R/O VILLAGE- TURKAULIYA, WARD NO. 9, P.S- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. 3. SATYENDRA PANDIT S/O DARESHI PANDIT @ RAM DARESHI PANDIT R/O VILLAGE- TURKAULIYA, WARD NO. 9, P.S- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. 4. SHAMBHU PANDIT S/O DARESHI PANDIT @ RAM DARESHI PANDIT R/O VILLAGE- TURKAULIYA, WARD NO. 9, P.S- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. 5. RAJU PANDIT S/O DARESHI PANDIT @ RAM DARESHI PANDIT R/O VILLAGE- TURKAULIYA, WARD NO. 9, P.S- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. 6. RAM UDESH PANDIT S/O LATE BUDHAN PANDIT R/O VILLAGE- TURKAULIYA, WARD NO. 9, P.S- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. 7. SHILA DEVI W/O DARESHI PANDIT @ RAM DARESHI PANDIT R/O VILLAGE- TURKAULIYA, WARD NO. 9, P.S- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. 8. RAM DULARI DEVI W/O RAM UDESH PANDIT R/O VILLAGE- TURKAULIYA, WARD NO. 9, P.S- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. 9. RAGNI DEVI W/O SHAMBHU PANDIT R/O VILLAGE- TURKAULIYA, WARD NO. 9, P.S- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. BINOD DAS S/O LATE FAUJDAR DAS R/O VILLAGE- TURKAULIYA, WARD NO. 9, P.S- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 10-09-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5223 of 2023(4) dt.10-09-2025 2/5 appearing on behalf of the informant. 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 29.09.2023 in A.B.P. No. 68 of 2023/263 of 2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Sitamarhi in connection with Sitamarhi SC/ST P.S. Case No. 39 of 2023 registered under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean antecedent and appellants no. 7, 8 and 9 are women and the informant alleges that on 17.08.2023, at about 04:00 p.m., the informant was returning home after daily work and when he came in front of the house of Dareshi Pandit (appellant no. 1) all the accused persons including the appellants abused him by his caste name. On objection, the accused persons assaulted the informant by fists and slaps. Further, when the wife of the informant, namely, Sharda Devi came to save him, Ram Dulari Devi (appellant no. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5223 of 2023(4) dt.10-09-2025 3/5 8) and Ragni Devi (appellant no. 9) dashed her on the ground and tied her and thereafter abused and assaulted her and Shambhu Pandit (appellant no. 4) snatched her golden Mangalsutra while Birendra Pandit (appellant no. 2) pushed informant’s wife on account of which her Saree got opened and even assaulted her. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant with general and omnibus allegation of assault and abuse. It is further submitted that land dispute in between the parties is going on. It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that when the informant reached near the house of the appellants, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, as such, the occurrence did not take place in public view nor the FIR even remotely suggest that the occurrence was witnessed by any independent witnesses. It is reiterated and submitted that allegation of assault and abuse is general and omnibus in nature. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants but then are not in a Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5223 of 2023(4) dt.10-09-2025 4/5 position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the occurrence did not take place in public view as the FIR does not even remotely suggest that the occurrence was witnessed by any independent witnesses. 6. Considering the submissions, let the appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on provisional 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 in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed. 8. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court shall verify whether the investigation in the case has been completed or not and if completed whether charge-sheet has been submitted or not and if charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken in that event the provisional Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5223 of 2023(4) dt.10-09-2025 5/5 anticipatory bail shall not be confirmed but if cognizance has not been taken till date in that event the provisional anticipatory bail shall be confirmed forthwith. Kundan/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T