IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3575 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1. Kashmir Ansari @ Mohammad Kashmir Ali Ansari Late Ali Ahmad @ Ali Ahmad Ansari @ Hafiz Ali Ahmad Village- Sukahara Ps- Karakat Dist- Rohtas 2. Sonu Ansari @ Mansur Alam @ Md. Masrur Alam S/o- Manjur Alam Village- Dehri Ps- Nasriganj Dist- Rohtas 3. Iqbal Ansari @ Iqbal Alam S/o- Mansoor Alam Village- Dehri Ps- Nasriganj Dist- Rohtas ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Vikash Kumar S/o- Jitendra Prasad @ Jitendra Ram Village- Amlowa Ps- nasriganj Dist- Rohtas ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Shankar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 07-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Informant and learned Spl. P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 5.7.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-17- cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with SC/ST Dehri P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 379, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(i)(r)(s)/ 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3575 of 2024(3) dt.07-11-2025 2/3 3. As per the prosecution case, because of parking issue, the parties have fought and the appellants are said to have assaulted the informant and have abused the informant by taking his caste name. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case and no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out in this case as the main thrust of allegation is because of dispute over parking of vehicle 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 has opposed the prayer of the appellants. 6. From the reading of the entire FIR, 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. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3575 of 2024(3) dt.07-11-2025 3/3 Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Anr. (Supra) and in the case of 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 5.7.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-17-cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with SC/ST Dehri P.S. Case No. 30 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-17-cum- Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with SC/ST Dehri P.S. Case No. 30 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