IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5555 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2022 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District- Samastipur ====================================================== Ajay Yadav Son of Raju Ray Resident of village- Adarsh nagar (Mohanpur), Police station- Samastipur mufassil District -Samastipur ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar bihar 2. Lallan Ram son of Late visheshwar Ram village- Musapur, Ward no. 13, Ps- Mufassil, dist- Samastipur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Anant Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. For the State Ms.Usha Kumari 1, Spl.PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 5 28-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 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 against the rejection of prayer for bail of the appellant vide order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (PoA) Act, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 163 of 2022 dated 10.04.2022 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307, 387, 504, 427 and 34 of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5555 of 2024(5) dt.28-03-2025 2/4 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1) (r)(s)/ 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. As per prosecution case, the appellant along with the other co-accused persons used to come at the house of the informant and demanded extortion of Rs. 50,000/-. When the informant refused to pay extortion money then the appellant and the co-accused persons started to abuse the informant by calling his caste name and also started firing in air from pistol with the intention to kill. The accused persons also damaged the household articles. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The occurrence took place on 09.04.2022 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 10.04.2022 and there is no explanation for this delay. There is no specific allegation against the appellant rather the allegation is general and omnibus in nature. The accused persons fired in the open air as such no one has sustained any firearm injury. It is further submitted that no member of public was present at the relevant point of time of the incident and hence, no offence under provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. It is further submitted Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5555 of 2024(5) dt.28-03-2025 3/4 that the appellant has no concern with the alleged offence. The co-accused person has already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 04.08.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1620/2023. The appellant has seven criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The appellant is in custody since 16.10.2024. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as finding substance in the contenion of the learned counel for the appellant, the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (PoA) Act, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 163 of 2022, is set aside against the appellant. The criminal appeal is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the above named appellant, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge SC/ST (PoA) Act, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 163 of 2022 with the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5555 of 2024(5) dt.28-03-2025 4/4 condition :- (i) The appellant is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond. (ii) If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (iii) And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at any stage it is found that the appellant has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification. Gautam/- (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U T