Tuntun Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4022 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2024 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Tuntun Ram S/o- Arjun Ram Village- Nawabganj, P. S- Surajgarha, DistrictLakhisarai. ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Budhan Kumar Son of Awadh Ram Village- Nawabganj Ps- Surajgarha DistLakhisarai ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl. PP Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-09-2025 1.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Shri 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 20-7-2024 in A.B.P. No. 497 of 2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Lakhisarai in connection with Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 132 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4022 of 2024(3) dt.02-09-2025 2/2 Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3.
Learned counsel for the informant submits that Gautam Kumar and Aman Kumar had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4070 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 3442 of 2024 respectively. It is next submitted that the appeals of the aforesaid appellants were dismissed, it is also submitted that the case of the appellant is on a similar footing.
4.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in the nature of allegation as alleged in the FIR, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant as the informant alleges that the deceased on account of assault died and the appellant was also present at the place of occurrence, further the investigation in the case against the appellant is continuing.
5.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T