CR. APP (SJ)/4781/2025 of Surendra Prajapat @ Surendra Prasad Vs The State of Bihar on 18 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

18-08-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant 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 30.10.2025 in A.B.P. No. 261 of 2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Gaya Ji in connection with Magadh University P.S. Case No. 135 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from perusal of the office report dated 13.8.2026, it would manifest that the notice has been validly served on the informant but then informant despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and contest.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 21.3.2025 at 12:30 PM, the informant was working under the PVC Dhalai scheme in his panchayat and his co-villager, Kamlesh, was also working as a labourer, when the named accused persons including the appellant came and abused by taking caste name and demanded extortion of Rs. 5 lakhs or else will not allow them to work, on objection, Sunil pointed pistol and assaulted by butt of pistol causing injury on head, thereafter appellant also assaulted and abused by taking caste name and Sunil along with appellant snatched cash of Rs. 90,000/- and gold ornaments from the victim.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges that the accused persons came and abused by taking caste name and demanded extortion. It is further submitted that it does not appear probable that all accused in one go would have abused the informant by taking caste name. It is also submitted that as far as allegation of demanding extortion is alleged the same is an exaggerated allegation as in the panchayat the work which the informant along with others were doing was not being executed properly hence an objection was raised when the instant false case came to be instituted and this perhaps explains why respondent no. 2, despite receiving notice, chooses not to appear and contest.

6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellant above-named, in the event of his 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) 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 T