CR. APP (SJ)/555/2026 of Ram Janam Pandit Vs The State of Bihar on 22 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

22-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Sri Binay Krishna 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 09.01.2026 in A.B.P. No. 2658/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI-cum-Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Gopalganj in connection with Barauli P.S. Case No. 341 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(B) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 12-10-2025 at 10:30 am, accused persons intercepted his son and Panku snatched his bike while appellant along with Kiran assaulted by lathi and Panku assaulted by an iron rod causing injury on head and when informant came to save his son, accused fled, further his son was admitted in PHC from where he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Gopalganj.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Kiran Devi was taken in custody as such her name has been deleted. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges that appellant along with Kiran assaulted his son by lathi, but then does not disclose where the injury was caused and thereafter alleges that Panku assaulted his son by an iron rod causing injury on head. It is further submitted that from perusal of the injury report annexed as Annexure-2 to the appeal, it would manifest that injured suffered only one injury on head and allegation of assaulting the injured on head is against Panku as such the allegation of assault by lathi by appellant and Kiran stands falsified. It is also submitted that appellant being father of Panku came to be implicated.

5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the child is the father of the man. It is next submitted that the informant alleges that even appellant along with his wife were present at the place of occurrence and it was in their presence that Panku assaulted the son of the informant, who is an army jawan, on head causing injury and the appellant did not make any endeavours to stop the assault.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant rebuts the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and submits that informant also alleges that appellant along with his wife Kiran assaulted the injured by lathi but then does not disclose where the injury was caused nor the injury report records any other injury, apart from head which amply demonstrates that appellant being father of Panku came to be implicated along with his wife, despite they being not present at the place of occurrence.

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