Sanjeeta Kumari @ Sangita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3714 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2024 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani ====================================================== Sanjeeta Kumari @ Sangita Kumari D/O-Chandeshwar Yadav Resident of village- Boharba, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ramanji Paswan Son of Late Rajveer Paswan R/V- Village- Belmoha, P.S.- Phulparas, Distt.- Madhubani ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate Mr. Udeshya Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Dileep Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Rikesh Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Madhubani in connection with Phulparas P.S. Case No. 168 of 2024, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 504, 385, 386, 379, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(r) and 3(i)(s) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the motorcycle used in

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3714 of 2024(3) dt.07-11-2025 2/3 the crime is registered in the name of the appellant, who is a woman.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are general and omnibus in nature, and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no direct allegation against the appellant. It is further submitted that no offence under the provisions of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant. Hence, the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. He further relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 1067, and Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.

5. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. From a perusal of the FIR, it does not appear that the alleged offence was committed against the informant on the ground that he belongs to the S.C./S.T. community.

7. In these circumstances, and considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Anr. (supra) and Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand (supra), this application for anticipatory bail is

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3714 of 2024(3) dt.07-11-2025 3/3 held to be maintainable.

8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this appeal is allowed, and accordingly, the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1cum-Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Madhubani in connection with Phulparas P.S. Case No. 168 of 2024 is set aside.

9. Let the appellant, in the event of her arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Madhubani/ concerned Court below in connection with Phulparas P.S. Case No. 168 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal/ Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Neha/- U T