Patna High Court
Dinesh Ray vs The State Of Bihar on 12 November, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4259 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-468 Year-2024 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Dinesh Ray S/O Ramchandra Ray
2. Pankaj Ray @ Pankaj Kumar S/O Late Raghunath Ray
3. Mithun Ray @ Mithun Kumar S/O Nageshwar Ray
4. Harendra Ray S/O Ramekbal Ray
5. Himanshu Kumar S/O Lal Bahadur Ray
6. Krishana Ray @ Krishana Bihari Yadav S/O Surendra Ray
All are resident of Village - Manua, P.S- Hajipur Sadar, Distt.- Vaishali.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Birju Paswan S/O Late Bangali Paswan R/O Village- Ismailpur, P.S-Hajipur
Sadar, Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Bhola Prasad, Advocate
For the OP No.2 : Mr.Ravish Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-11-2025
Heard Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants; Mr. Ravish Mishra, learned counsel
for OP No.2 and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Spl. PP for the
State.
2. The appellants have preferred the present appeal
under Section 14(A) (2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the rejection of
prayer for pre-arrest bail, vide order dated 03.08.2024 passed by
the learned Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Vaishali at
Hajipur in ABP No.1919 of 2024 arising out of Hajipur Sadar
PS Case No.468 of 2024, registered for the offenes under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4259 of 2024 dt.12-11-2025
Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 303
(2), 324(4), 324(5), 76, 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 27 of
Arms Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, 41 FIR
named accused persons including appellants along with 200-300
unknown 'Yadav' community armed with various weapons
abused in the name of caste/community of the informant, due to
the village politics and threatened to plunder the house,
thereafter, they assaulted the informant and his communities and
tore the blouse of female members with bad intention and
committed loot-pat of their household articles and fired pistol. It
is alleged that during the said occurrence, many people became
injured and they were brought to the hospital for treatment.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that admittedly, the incident has taken
place in public place, however, no specific allegation has been
made against the particular appellants for using abusive
language or taking caste name of the informant, rather the
allegation is against all the accused. Appellants were only
members of the mob. Learned counsel further submitted that
though certain persons sustained grievous injury but the same
can not be attributed to these appellants. Appellants have clean
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4259 of 2024 dt.12-11-2025
antecedents. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted
that the allegation being general and omnibus, the appellants
seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, Mr. Ravish Mishra has tendered his
appearance on behalf of O.P. No.2 and he has submitted that the
Apex Court in the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Juvraj Jain &
Anr. in Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.8169 of 2025, while
emphasizing the operational ambit of Section 18 of the SC/ST
Act, held that allowing anticipatory bail by the High Court was
unwarranted. On these grounds, the appellants do not deserve to
be released on bail and their case may be dismissed.
6. Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Spl. P.P. submitted
that in the recent judgment, the Apex Court while considering
the scope of Section 18 of SC/ST Act has observed that only in
the cases where offence can not be said to have been made out
on a very prima facie consideration, the court may exercise
discretion to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused.
7. To appreciate the rival submissions, it will be
apposite to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
of SC/ST Act, which is inter alia as follows : -
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-
(1) (r) Intentionally insults or intimidates
with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4259 of 2024 dt.12-11-2025
view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any
place within public view."
8. The term "any place within public view" initially
came for consideration before the Apex Court in case of
Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel &
Anr. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435. In the case of Hitesh
Verms Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in (2008) 8
SCC 435, the Apex Court had reiterated the legal position in
paragraph no.14 which is as under :
"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is
insult or intimidation in "any place within public view".
What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come
up for consideration before this Court in the judgment
reported as Swaran Singh v. State[Swaran Singh v. State,
(2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court
had drawn distinction between the expression "public
place" and "in any place within public view". It was held
that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a
lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone
from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the
lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On
the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but
some members of the public are there (not merely relatives
or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in
the public view (sic) [Ed.: This sentence appears to be
contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran
Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the
application of this principle in para 15, below:"Also, even
if the remark is made inside a building, but some members
of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then
also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."] .
The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod
Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by
Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar")
when he stood near the car which was parked at
the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was
certainly a place within public view, since the gate
of a house is certainly a place within public view. It
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4259 of 2024 dt.12-11-2025
could have been a different matter had the alleged
offence been committed inside a building, and also
was not in the public view. However, if the offence
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. Also, even if the remark is
made inside a building, but some members of the
public are there (not merely relatives or friends)
then also it would be an offence since it is in the
public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the
expression "place within public view" with the
expression "public place". A place can be a
private place but yet within the public view. On the
other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a
place which is owned or leased by the Government
or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon
sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by
private persons or private bodies."
9. A reference in this regard can also be taken to a
recent judgment passed in the case of Karuppudayar Vs. State
Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Tricy &
Ors. arising out of Special Leave Petition (criminal) No.8778-
8779 of 2024), reported in 2025 INSC 132.
10. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having thoughtfully read the
allegation made in the FIR, I find that the alleged offence took
place because of political rivalry, which turns into fierce fight
between the parties. Nearly 200 accused persons gathered in a
mob and the appellants were also members of the said mob and
the allegation of assaulting the informant and the members of
his community is not specific against the appellants, nor using
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4259 of 2024 dt.12-11-2025
of abusive casteist utterance is specific against the present
appellants. It is though clear that the place where the incident
has taken place is within the public view and the offences can
come within the provisions of Section 3(i) (r) or Section 3(i)(s)
of SC/ST Act, but in absence of any specific allegation against
the appellants, I find that the appellants have prima facie made
out a case to be released on bail.
11. The appellants, above named, are directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the even of their arrest or
surrender before the learned court below within a period of four
weeks, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each tot he satisfaction of
the learned District Court where the case is pending in
connection with ABP No.1919 of 2024 arising out of Hajipur
Sadar PS Case No.468 of 2024, subject to the conditons as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/482 of the BNSS.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the present appeal is allowed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.11.2025
Transmission Date 17.11.2025
