IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.315 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2025 Thana- GUTHANI District- Siwan ====================================================== Anuj Kumar Pandey S/o Rameshwar Pandey Resident of Village- Pipra Kala, P.S.- Maharajganj, Dist.- Siwan At present posted in Muthoot Microfin Let, Mairawa, P.S. Mairawa, Distt. Siwan ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Mukesh Kumar Ram S/o Ramashish Ram Resident of Village- Mishrauli, P.S.- Guthani, Distt.- Siwan ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate Ms. Shyama Rani, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 18-08-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor 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 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 11.09.2025 in A.B.P. No. 2160 of 2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Siwan in connection with Guthani P.S. Case No. 229 of 2025 registered under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean antecedent and works as a recovery agent for Muthoot Microfin Limited. It is further Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.315 of 2026(5) dt.18-08-2026 2/3 submitted that wife of the informant had taken a loan of Rs.65,000/- from Muthoot Microfin Limited and the installment of Rs.2,570/- per month was fixed but his wife could not deposit the EMI for the month of June, as such, the recovery agent, namely, Anuj Kumar Pandey (appellant), Avinash Kumar and Amarjeet Kumar came to his house and demanded the installment on which his wife disclosed that presently she does not have the money as the same was spent in treatment on which the accused persons abused by taking caste name, hence, the wife of the informant was not able to take the insult and, thus, committed suicide by hanging herself to the fan. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that the accused persons had come to his house seeking installment of the loan and when the same was not paid, the victim was threatened and abused on account of which she committed suicide but then it is submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then it is a case of abetment. It is next submitted that informant falsely instituted the instant case when his wife committed suicide on account of disptue with the informant and his family members. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.315 of 2026(5) dt.18-08-2026 3/3 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant and submits that informant specifically alleges that on account of humiliation meted out to the wife of the informant by the recovery agent she committed suicide. It is further submitted that had the wife of the informant committed suicide on account of any dispute with the informant or his family members in that event the family members of the deceased would have instituted a separate case but then that does not appear from the pleadings made in the appeal. It is next submitted that investigation in the case is continuing and if the appellant is innocent, the police, after investigation, will submit final form exonerating the appellant of the allegation. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant in connection with the aforesaid case. 7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Kundan/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T