Patna High Court
CR. APP (SJ)/2977/2025 of Sonu Ansari Vs The State of Bihar on 17 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2977 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Gaya ====================================================== 1. Sonu Ansari S/O Kamruddin Mian @ Kamruddin Ansari Resident of village- Lutua Tole Narayandih, Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2977 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Gaya
======================================================
1.
Sonu Ansari S/O Kamruddin Mian @ Kamruddin Ansari Resident of village- Lutua Tole Narayandih, Police Station- Lutua, District- Gaya
2.
Kamruddin Mian @ Kamruddin Ansari S/O Nizammuddin Ansari Resident of village- Lutua Tole Narayandih, Police Station- Lutua, District- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar
2.
Krishna Bhuiya S/O Late Manager Bhuiya Resident of village- Lutua Tole Narayandih, Police Station- Lutua, District- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s
:
Mr. Dharmesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s
:
Mr. Binay Krishna, Special P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
17-08-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Special P.P. and the learned counsel 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 17.12.2024 in A.B.P. No. 375 of 2024, passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST, Gaya in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 51 of 2024 dated 02.10.2024 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5)
of the BNS 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 appellant no.1 has antecedent of one case instituted by the side of the informant and appellant no.2 is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 29.09.2024 at 3 P.M. informant along with his family members were working in their paddy field, when Sonu, Julekha, Afsana, Kamruddin and Salma Khatoon came and abused by taking caste name and said that the land belongs to them and Sonu assaulted the informant by lathi causing injury near his ear.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant on account of dispute relating to land. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges that they were in their paddy field, when accused persons came and said that the land belongs to them, on account of which, the occurrence is alleged to have been taken place. It is further submitted that the date of occurrence is 29.09.2024 and the FIR came to be instituted on 02.10.2024 i.e. after a delay of more than four days, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the FIR is instituted based on written application of the informant. It is next submitted that had the informant been assaulted in the manner as alleged, in that event, the hospital would have informed the police that a case of assault is reported for treatment but then that is not the case. It is also submitted that even women members of the family have been implicated only with a view to coerce the side of the appellants into submission. It is next submitted that the allegations are to be viewed in backdrop of a land dispute.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the order impugned is set aside. Let the appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.
amit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T