Patna High Court – Orders
Om Prakash Gupta vs The State Of Bihar on 21 April, 2026
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4248 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2023 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran
======================================================
1. OM PRAKASH GUPTA S/O RAMJI PRASAD GUPTA R/O VILLAGE-
MUBARAKPUR, P.S- MANJHI, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHHAPRA.
2. PINTU KUMAR @ PINTU PRASAD GUPTA S/O OM PRAKASH
GUPTA R/O VILLAGE- MUBARAKPUR, P.S- MANJHI, DISTT.-
SARAN AT CHHAPRA.
3. DHARMENDRA KUMAR GUPTA @ DHARMENDRA PRASAD GUPTA
S/O OM PRAKASH GUPTA R/O VILLAGE- MUBARAKPUR, P.S-
MANJHI, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHHAPRA.
4. RANJAN RAJ GUPTA @ RANJAN PRASAD GUPTA @ RANJAN
PRASAD S/O SHAMBHUJI GUPTA @ SHAMBHU JI PRASAD R/O
VILLAGE- MUBARAKPUR, P.S- MANJHI, DISTT.- SARAN AT
CHHAPRA.
5. RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTA @ MUNNA PRASAD S/O JAI PRAKASH
GUPTA R/O VILLAGE- MUBARAKPUR, P.S- MANJHI, DISTT.-
SARAN AT CHHAPRA.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. RADHIKA DEVI W/O RAGHU NATH SAH R/O VILLAGE-
MUBARAKPUR, P.S- MANJHI, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHHAPRA.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 21-04-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Special Public Prosecutor 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4248 of 2023(6) dt.21-04-2026
2/5
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 25.08.2023 in A.B.P. No. 2606 of 2023 passed by
the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Saran at Chapra in
connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 218 of 2023 registered
under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 354, 379, 504 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST
Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that on 04.06.2023, at
12:00 noon, the accused persons including the appellants came
on account of dispute relating to drain and started abusing and
Pintu Kumar (appellant no. 2) assaulted the informant by knife
causing injury on head and when Indrajeet came to save her, all
the accused persons assaulted him by lathi and danda and
Dharmendra snatched chain of Indrajeet. Further, Ranjan and
Pintu Kumar held the hand of Rajni and pulled her saree, thus,
she was partly unveiled.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4248 of 2023(6) dt.21-04-2026
3/5
trivial issue of drain, the occurrence is alleged to have taken
place. It is next submitted that appellants and the informant are
neighbour and a dispute regarding drain is existing in between
the parties for which an altercation took place in between Pintu
Kumar and the informant and thereafter the instant FIR came to
be instituted with exaggerated allegation. It is also submitted
that no doubt, it is alleged that appellants abused by taking caste
name but then it does not appear probable that all appellants in
one go would have abused the informant by taking caste name.
It is submitted that allegation of assault is also general and
omnibus with regard to the appellants, except Pintu Kumar
(appellant no. 2) and allegation of snatching of chain and
pulling hand of Rajni is ornamental in order to give seriousness
to the case. It is further submitted that even presuming what has
been alleged is true without admitting then the entire occurrence
took place at the house of the informant and, thus, was not in
public view.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants and
submits that there is specific allegation against Pintu Kumar
(appellant no. 2) of assaulting the informant by knife causing
injury on head on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4248 of 2023(6) dt.21-04-2026
4/5
the appellants submits that from perusal of the order impunged,
it would manifest that the injury has been discussed and the
same has been opined to be simple in nature caused by hard and
blunt substance when knife is a sharp edged weapon on which
learned Special P.P. submits that even presuming that the assault
was committed by hard and blunt substance but then also Pintu
Kumar is alleged to have assaulted a woman.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the appellant no. 2, namely, Pintu Kumar in connection
with the aforesaid case. Hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the other appellants, let the
appellants no. 1 and 3 to 5, above-named, in the event of their
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 bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending in
connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4248 of 2023(6) dt.21-04-2026
5/5
B.N.S.S.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is partly set aside
and this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link
