CR. APP (SJ)/3425/2025 of Sagir Mian @ Md. Sagir @ Sagir Vs The State of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3425 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2023 Thana- CHANDRADIP District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Sagir Mian @ Md. Sagir @ Sagir S/o Fakru Mian Resident Of Village-
Sahkeda, Ps- Chandradeep, Dist- Jamui
2. Md. Salik @ Salik Mian @ Md Shali Kudin S/o Fakru Mian Resident Of
Village- Sahkeda, Ps- Chandradeep, Dist- Jamui
3. Md. Sadaruddin @ Sairuddin @ Md. Sahaduddin @ Md. Sahruddin S/o
Fakru Mian Resident Of Village- Sahkeda, Ps- Chandradeep, Dist- Jamui
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Makeshwar Paswan S/o Late Mohan Paswan R/o vill - Sahoda, P.S.-
Chandradeep, Distt.- Jamui
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3453 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2023 Thana- CHANDRADIP District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Md. Sabir @ Md. Sarik S/o Md. Salik @ Salik Mian @ Md Shalikudin
Resident of Village- Sahkeda, P.S.- Chandradeep, Dist- Jamui
2. Md. Jamal @ Md. Jalal S/o Md. Sadaruddin @ Sairuddin Resident of
Village- Sahkeda, P.S.- Chandradeep, Dist- Jamui
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Makeshwar Paswan S/o Mohan Paswan R/o Vill- Sahoda, P.S.-
Chandradeep, Distt- Jamui
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3425 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sarfraz Akhtar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 3453 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sarfraz Akhtar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 16-04-2026 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3425 of 2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3425 of 2025(5) dt.16-04-2026
2/6
learned Special P.P. Mr. Sadanand Paswan for the State. No one
appears on behalf of the respondent no.2.
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
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 17.02.2025 in A.B.P. No. 2230/2024, passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in connection with
Chandradeep P.S. Case No.175/2023, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 147, 341, 379, 504, 506, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v), 3(r)
(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent. It is next
submitted that respondent no.2 despite receiving notice chooses
not to appear and contest. It is next submitted that informant
alleges that he along with his family members were in the house
when accused persons including the appellants came at 8 P.M.
on 24.07.2023 and started abusing, on protest all the accused
abused by taking caste name and said to vacate the house or
they will be killed, thereafter Sagir and Salik started assaulting
while Sadruddin dashed Sunita on ground and Amol with Sadish
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3425 of 2025(5) dt.16-04-2026
3/6
assaulted the informant by fist and took out Rs.2000/-, further
reason for the occurrence is land dispute in between the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the entire
occurrence took place at the house of the informant, thus was
not in public view. It is also submitted that informant himself
alleges that the occurrence took place on account of dispute in
between the parties relating to land. It is also submitted that the
allegation of abuse is general and omnibus in nature as it does
not appear probable that all accused in one-go would have
started abusing the informant. It is next submitted that even
allegation of assault is not specific and this perhaps explains
why the informant despite receiving notice chooses not to
appear and contest.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellants.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the order impugned is set aside. Let the appellants, 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3425 of 2025(5) dt.16-04-2026
4/6
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees
five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending
in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.3453 of 2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned Special P.P. Mr. Sadanand Paswan for the State. No one
appears on behalf of the respondent no.2.
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
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 17.02.2025 in A.B.P. No. 15/2025, passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in connection with
Chandradeep P.S. Case No.175/2023, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 147, 341, 379, 504, 506, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v), 3(r)
(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3425 of 2025(5) dt.16-04-2026
5/6
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent. It is next
submitted that respondent no.2 despite receiving notice chooses
not to appear and contest. It is next submitted that informant
alleges that he along with his family members were in the house
when accused persons including the appellants came at 8 P.M.
on 24.07.2023 and started abusing, on protest all the accused
abused by taking caste name and said to vacate the house or
they will be killed, thereafter Sagir and Salik started assaulting
while Sadruddin dashed Sunita on ground and Amol with Sadish
assaulted the informant by fist and took out Rs.2000/-, further
reason for the occurrence is land dispute in between the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the entire
occurrence took place at the house of the informant, thus was
not in public view. It is also submitted that informant himself
alleges that the occurrence took place on account of dispute in
between the parties relating to land. It is also submitted that the
allegation of abuse is general and omnibus in nature as it does
not appear probable that all accused in one-go would have
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3425 of 2025(5) dt.16-04-2026
6/6
started abusing the informant. It is next submitted that even
allegation of assault is not specific and this perhaps explains
why the informant despite receiving notice chooses not to
appear and contest.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellants.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the order impugned is set aside. Let the appellants, 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 bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees
five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending
in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
amit/-
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
U T