Facts
The appellants (a mother and her four sons) were accused in SC/ST P.S. Case No. 58 of 2024. The informant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that he entered into a land sale agreement with the appellants for ₹12,50,000/-, paying ₹5,76,000/- in cash and ₹6,00,000/- via bank transfer.
Source reference: p. 2He further alleged that on 20.08.2024, when he demanded execution of the deed or return of the money, the appellants assaulted and abused him using caste-based slurs and issued death threats.
Source reference: p. 2The appellants contended the dispute was civil in nature, involving a loan for a gold-smith business, and that no public view requirement for the SC/ST Act was met as the incident occurred inside a house.
Source reference: p. 3The Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Patna, rejected their anticipatory bail prayers on 18.12.2024 and 02.01.2025.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail despite the bar under the SC/ST Act, given the nature of the allegations and the offer of restitution.
Source reference: p. 3-42. Whether the alleged caste-based abuse, occurring inside a private house, satisfies the "public view" requirement under the SC/ST Act.
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The Court applied the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 191(1) (Rioting), 316(1) & (5) (Criminal breach of trust), 318(4) (Cheating), 352 (Intention to insult and provoke), and 351(2) & (3) (Criminal intimidation).
Source reference: p. 2It further considered Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which penalize intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate in any place within "public view".
Source reference: p. 2The court also exercised its discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS, conditioned upon restitution.
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court evaluated the submission that the transaction was essentially a financial dispute between acquaintances rather than a purely criminal atrocity.
Source reference: p. 3It noted that while the informant alleged caste-based abuse, the appellants argued that such acts took place inside a house and thus did not occur in "public view" as required to attract the specific rigors of the SC/ST Act.
Source reference: p. 3Crucially, the Court observed that the informant expressed "no objection" to the grant of bail provided the principal loan amount of ₹6,00,000/- (admitted by one of the appellants to have been received in a bank account) was refunded.
Source reference: p. 3Without delving into the merits of the criminal charges, the Court determined that the interests of justice and the informant’s grievances could be balanced by granting bail conditional upon the immediate deposit of the admitted sum.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The High Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed both appeals.
It directed that in the event of arrest or surrender, the appellants be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of ₹10,000/- each. The grant of bail is strictly conditional upon the appellants depositing a demand draft of ₹6,000,000/- in the name of the informant at the time of furnishing bail bonds.
Source reference: p. 3-4Failure to comply with this restitution condition grants the lower court liberty to cancel the bail.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Sobha Devi @ Shobha DevivsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in