Subodh Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3610 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2021 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

SUBODH KUMAR RAY Son of Shiv Nandan Ray Resident of VillageChak Sikandar, P.S.- Tajpur, District- Samastipur. 2.

Nandu Ray Son of Late Chaturi Ray Resident of Village- Chak Sikandar, P.S.- Tajpur, District- Samastipur.

3.

Arvind Ray Son of Ramchandra Ray Resident of Village- Chak Sikandar, P.S.- Tajpur, District- Samastipur.

4.

Kapil Ray Son of Nandu Ray Resident of Village- Chak Sikandar, P.S.- Tajpur, District- Samastipur.

5.

Rabindra Ray Son of Ram Chandra Ray Resident of Village- Chak Sikandar, P.S.- Tajpur, District- Samastipur.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Bipat Das Son of Late Darogi Das R/o vill- Chaksikandar P.S.- Tajpur Disti Samastipur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Malti Kumari For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 30-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.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 of anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.07.2021, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3610 of 2021(3) dt.30-11-2022 2/2 Samastipur in connection with Tajpur P.S. Case No.149 of 2021, registered under Sections 323, 379, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(B) of the Arms Act as well as under Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act.

Appellants No.1 and 2, namely, Subodh Kumar Ray and Nandu Ray are said to have abused the informant by naming his caste. Appellants Arvind Rai and Ravindera Rai are said to have snatched Rs.25,000/- kept in the pocket of the informant. It is also alleged that appellant no.1, Subodh Kumar Ray threatened the informant.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 submits before this Court that in the instant case final form has been submitted against the appellants, therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Sanjay/- U T