Rajnish Singh @ Rajnish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3989 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2024 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna ====================================================== Rajnish Singh @ Rajnish Kumar Son of Arjun Singh R/o Lahsuna, Jaunpuri, Lahsuna, P.S.- Punpun, District- Patna, Bihar 804452 ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Chando Devi Wife of Raju Das R/o Gram Makdumpur Jaunpura, P.S.- Punpun, District- Patna, Bihar 804452 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Adv.
Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-03-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special P.P. Ms. Usha Kumari No.I for the State.
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 27.06.2024 in connection with Punpun P.S. Case No.01/2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court (Sadar) Patna, registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3989 of 2024(5) dt.30-03-2026 2/3
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that her minor daughter on 28.12.2023 at 9.30 A.M. was going to attend call of nature when she was dashed by a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no.BR02Y6562, further the Scorpio belonged to the appellant, next alleges that family members of the appellant abused by taking caste name and threatened not to institute an FIR or else would be killed and the injured was taken to the hospital.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the date of occurrence is 28.12.2023 and the FIR came to be instituted on 01.01.2024 i.e. after a delay of more than three days, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the same does not attribute the accident to the appellant but then it is alleged that the vehicle by which the accident was committed belongs to the appellant. It is submitted that a supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein the disability certificate of the appellant has been brought on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3989 of 2024(5) dt.30-03-2026 3/3 record by way of Annexure-P/2 and from perusal of the same, it would manifest that appellant suffered from disability of 50%. It is next submitted that appellant does not drive the car.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State opposes the appeal.
6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, let the appellant, above named, in the event of his 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 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T