Dilip Kumar Rana v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4132 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-950 Year-2025 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Dilip Kumar Rana Son of Rama Nand Rana 2.

Vikki Kumar Rana 3.

Shivam Kumar Rana 4.

Mannu Kumar Rana 5.

Prince Kumar Rana All Sons of Dilip Kumar Rana Resident of Village - Sahwajpur, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Manoj Ram Son of Lakhan Ram Resident of Village - Muradpur Dallah, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Alok, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The appellants have challenged the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.950 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 352 BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act whereby their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.

2/4

3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 08.07.2025, at 07:00 pm, the informant was at his sand and gravel shop. Nearby is Mudalah Market B, which houses a tea and snacks stall. The informant asked the stall owner for a bottle of water and offered him a 500 rupee note. Mudalah, along with other people, verbally abused him, claiming he was showing a 500 rupee note. The people present there calmed the situation. Some time later, the informant's maternal uncle informed him that Mudalah had come to the shop with other people and was abusing him. When the informant returned to his shop, he saw that Mudalah, along with his maternal uncle Laxman Ram, Deepmala Devi, and Abhishek Kumar, were assaulting him with sticks, rods, and swords, and were also using caste-based abuse. When the informant tried to intervene, they assaulted him as well.

When Amit Kaushik came to rescue, all the people attacked him with swords, due to which his head was cut and he became unconscious. Abhishek Kumar's mobile was stolen and ten thousand rupees were snatched from the informant's pocket. The informant and others were treated at SKMCH. On the basis of the informant's statement, a case was registered under Ahiyapur Police Station Case No.

3/4 BNS and 3 (1) (r) (s), 3 (2) (v) Scheduled Caste/Tribe (A.N.) Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case and they have no criminal history. Further submits that from the allegations levelled in the FIR, it is clear that there is general allegation against the appellants of having hurled abuses on caste line without specifying the exact nature of the abuses.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants based upon the allegation made in the F.I.R.

6. From the allegations levelled in the FIR, it is clear that there is just a general allegation against the appellants of having hurling abuses on caste line without specifying the exact nature of the abuses.

7. Considering all these aspect of the matter, the appellants above named above, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

4/4 learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.950 of 2025 , subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J) Prakash Narayan U T