Patna High Court
Vinay Kumar Singh @ Abhishek Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 7 October, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.459 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-490 Year-2020 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Vinay Kumar Singh @ Abhishek Singh S/o Late Ram Chandra Singh R/o
vill - Supaul Tariya, P.S. - Mahua, Distt. - Vaishali
2. Ravi Kumar S/o Vinay Kumar Singh @ Abhishek Singh R/o vill - Supaul
Tariya, P.S. - Mahua, Distt. - Vaishali
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Durgeshwari Devi W/o Awdhesh Paswan R/o vill - Supaul Tariya, P.O. -
Salempur Dumariya, P.S. - Mahua, Distt. - Vaishali
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravish Mishra, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special P.P.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-10-2025
Heard both sides.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order
dated 23.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST,
Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 490
of 2020, SC/ST G.R. No. 169 of 2020 registered under Sections
341, 323, 325, 506, 504, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of
SC/ST Act whereby and whereunder cognizance for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506, 34 of the
IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act has been taken against
the appellants.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.459 of 2024 dt.07-10-2025
2/8
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that respondent
no. 2/ informant submitted her written statement before the SHO
of Mahua Police Station, Vaishali stating therein that on
25.08.2020
informant's son/ Sujit Kumar and Dharmendra
Paswan were passing through the road situated in front of
informant's house. It is alleged that appellant no. 2/ Ravi Kumar
came on road from north side in front of gate of Ganaur Paswan
and pointed pistol on ear-pit of informant's son/ Sujit Kumar and
while abusing by calling his caste name appellant no. 2
threatened the informant's son to be killed. Thereafter,
informant's son raised alarm upon which nearby people began to
assemble there. Thereafter, appellant no. 2 fled away. It is
further alleged that before reaching the informant and her
husband at the place of occurrence, the appellant no. 2 had fled
away. It is further alleged that when appellant no. 1/ Vinay
Kumar Singh @ Abhishek Singh was informed on phone
regarding the conduct of his son, he came there and made
abusive language indicating caste name and also assaulted the
informant's husband. It is further alleged that appellant no. 2 and
10-12 unknown persons armed with weapon came there and
began to assault and threatened to kill and also abused by
calling caste name. It is further alleged that appellant no. 1
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.459 of 2024 dt.07-10-2025
assaulted the informant's elder son by means of lathi due to
which he sustained fracture injury on his hand. It is apprehended
by the informant that if any incident takes place against the
informant and her family members, it would be presumed that
appellants might have committed the said occurrence.
4. On the basis of said written statement, Mahua
P.S. Case No. 490 of 2020 has been registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 506, 504, 34 of the
IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
that appellants, who are father and son, are innocent and have
committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Learned counsel
further submits that appellant no. 1 is Government Prakhand
Teacher in Utkarmik Higher School, Supaul and appellant no. 2
is working in Delhi in a private firm. He further submits that
prior to the present case, appellant no. 1 lodged Mahua P.S.
Case No. 489 of 2020 under Sections 341, 323, 353, 379, 427,
385, 504, 34 of the IPC against the informant's husband and her
two sons and the present case is nothing but counter blast of said
Mahua P.S. Case No. 489 of 2020. He further submits that
alleged occurrence has not taken place in public place and
hence, in the light of ingredients of SC/ST Act, no offence is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.459 of 2024 dt.07-10-2025
made out against the appellants. Learned counsel further
submits that there is two days delay in lodging the FIR as the
alleged occurrence took place on 25.08.2020 and FIR has been
lodged on 27.08.2020 and no plausible explanation has been
given regarding the said delay. He further submits that the
present case has been lodged by the informant just to misuse the
privilege of SC/ST Act. He further submitted that investigation
conducted by the police is faulty and charge sheet has been
submitted under the provision of SC/ST Act just to implicate the
appellants. He further submitted that informant's son has not
sustained any injury which falsifies the allegation made in the
FIR. Learned counsel further submits that without application of
mind, the concerned court accepted the charge sheet in toto and
took cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506, 34 of
the IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act against the
appellants without having any specific material against them. In
the light of aforesaid fact, order passed by the concerned court is
not justified and legal and same is fit to be set aside.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that
appellants and informant are resident of same village and
appellants are well aware of the fact as to which caste the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.459 of 2024 dt.07-10-2025
informant and her family members belong to. Learned counsels
further submitted that as per prosecution case, there is allegation
against appellant no. 2/ Ravi Kumar that he came on road from
north side in front of gate of Ganaur Paswan and pointed pistol
on ear-pit of informant's son and used abusive language
indicating caste name and also threatened to kill. On raising
alarm, people of nearby came and after having seen the people
of nearby, appellant no. 2 fled away. The FIR clearly indicates
that the occurrence took place on road and other persons were
also present at the place of occurrence which attracts the
mandate of SC/ST Act. There is allegation against appellant no.
1 that he reached at the place of occurrence and used similar
abusive language denoting caste name and also assaulted the
informant's husband and her elder son. It is also alleged that
appellant no. 2 and 10-12 unknown persons armed with weapon
again came there and used abusive language indicating caste
name and began to assault. Learned counsels further submitted
that the accusation as alleged in the FIR clearly reflects that
occurrence took place in public gaze and hence, contention of
learned counsel for the appellants is neither tenable nor
sustainable in the light of the accusation made in the FIR.
Learned counsels further submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.459 of 2024 dt.07-10-2025
under Sections 341, 323, 325, 506, 504, 34 of the IPC and
Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act. Learned counsels further
submitted that the investigating officer has conducted
investigation on all points as alleged in the FIR and after
completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under
Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section
3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act. He further submits that the learned trial
court has found that sufficient material is available against the
appellants and concerned court took cognizance against the
appellants under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506, 34 of the
IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act on the basis of, prima
facie, material available on record. In this way, the trial court
has applied its judicial mind and after going through all the
material available on record, the court has passed the reasoned
order and hence, no interference is needed.
7. After hearing the parties concerned as well as
material available on record, it is crystal clear that contention of
appellant's counsel is neither tenable nor sustainable in the light
of verbatim of the informant, who has specifically stated that
appellants assaulted the informant's husband and her son and
also used abusive language indicating caste name. The
contention of learned counsel for the State as well as learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.459 of 2024 dt.07-10-2025
counsel for the informant is quite relevant that as per accusation
made in the FIR, the occurrence took place in public gaze. The
Investigating Officer has conducted investigation on all points
and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet
under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and
Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.
8. It is necessary to cite decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak
Gupta and Others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424 in which at
para 8 it has been held as follows:-
'8. At the stage of cognizance
and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply
his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance
of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether
a prima facie case has been made out for
summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the
learned Magistrate is not required to consider the
defence version or materials or arguments nor is he
required to evaluate the merits of the materials or
evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate
must not undertake the exercise to find out at this
stage whether the materials will lead to conviction
or not.'
9. From perusal of the order dated 23.05.2022
passed by Special Judge, SC/ST, Vaishali at Hajipur in
connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 490 of 2020, SC/ST G.R.
No. 169 of 2020, it appears that order has been passed with due
application of mind on the basis of case diary and column 11 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.459 of 2024 dt.07-10-2025
the charge-sheet where name of appellants have been
mentioned. In the light of aforesaid fact, the court has found that
a prima facie case is made out against the appellants.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and also that a prima facie case has been found against the
appellants having regard to the accusations made in the First
Information Report and the material available on the record, this
court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated
23.05.2022.
11. Keeping in view all the aspects and discussions
made above, I find no reason to differ from the finding of the
trial court.
12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed at
the stage of admission itself.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 10.10.2025
Transmission Date 10.10.2025
