Can a massive mob violence case stand in court without specific allegations against individual accused? In a closely watched ruling, the Patna High Court granted bail to 12 accused in the Harinagar SC/ST case.
In a significant ruling concerning allegations of caste-based violence and the application of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Patna High Court has granted bail to 12 accused persons in the widely discussed Harinagar SC/ST case. The Court observed that while the allegations in the FIR were serious in nature, the accusations against the appellants were largely “general and omnibus” without specific overt acts attributed to them.
The order was passed by the Single Judge Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey, which also set aside an earlier order of the Special SC/ST Court in Darbhanga that had denied bail to the accused.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from two connected criminal appeals — Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1049 of 2026 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1086 of 2026. The appellants included Mithu Jha, Hemkant Jha, Srinath Jha alias Srikant Jha, Namami Shankar Jha, Guddu Jha, Santosh Kumar Jha, Raushan Jha, Prahlad Kumar Jha, Anand Kumar Jha, Mahant Mishra, Lala Mishra, and Kashikant Jha — all residents of Harinagar village under Kusheshwarsthan Police Station in Bihar’s Darbhanga district.
The case originated from Kusheshwarsthan P.S. Case No. 22 of 2026, registered under several stringent provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Allegations in the FIR
According to the prosecution, the dispute stemmed from an alleged disagreement over unpaid wages owed to the son of the informant, Asharfi Paswan. The FIR alleged that on January 1, 2026, the victim was returning home after buying vegetables when he was intercepted and assaulted by a large mob.
The complaint named nearly 70 individuals and claimed that another 100 to 150 unidentified persons were also part of the attack. The assailants were allegedly armed with iron rods, axes, sickles, and bricks. The FIR further alleged that casteist abuses were hurled during the incident and that certain accused persons attacked the victim on the head with an iron rod following an alleged instruction to kill him.
Following their arrest, the accused approached the Exclusive Special Judge under the SC/ST (POA) Act in Darbhanga seeking bail. However, their plea was rejected on February 18, 2026, after which they moved the Patna High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the accused had been falsely implicated and that the FIR contained exaggerated allegations involving an unusually large number of named and unnamed persons. The defense emphasized that the victim’s medical report reflected only a single injury, despite claims of a brutal mob attack involving hundreds of people.
The appellants further argued that no specific role had been assigned to most of the accused and that the allegations were broadly worded without clear attribution of individual acts. The defense also informed the Court that a similarly situated co-accused had previously been granted bail by the High Court in a separate proceeding.
It was additionally submitted that the accused had no criminal antecedents and had remained in judicial custody since February 1, 2026.
Opposing the bail plea, the Special Public Prosecutor and counsel for the informant contended that the assault involved targeted violence against members of the Scheduled Caste community and that the seriousness of the allegations justified continued detention.
Court’s Observation and Order
After hearing both sides and examining the records, Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey observed that although the allegations were grave, the prosecution had failed to attribute any clear and specific overt act to the appellants individually.
The Court noted that the allegations against the accused appeared “general and omnibus” in nature and also took into consideration the period of custody undergone by the appellants, their clean antecedents, and the fact that similarly situated co-accused had already secured bail.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court allowed both criminal appeals and set aside the earlier order of the Special Court. The Court directed that all 12 appellants be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 each along with two sureties of the like amount before the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Darbhanga.
In a significant ruling concerning allegations of caste-based violence and the application of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Patna High Court has granted bail to 12 accused persons in the widely discussed Harinagar SC/ST case. The Court observed that while the allegations in the FIR were serious in nature, the accusations against the appellants were largely “general and omnibus” without specific overt acts attributed to them.
The order was passed by the Single Judge Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey, which also set aside an earlier order of the Special SC/ST Court in Darbhanga that had denied bail to the accused.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from two connected criminal appeals — Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1049 of 2026 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1086 of 2026. The appellants included Mithu Jha, Hemkant Jha, Srinath Jha alias Srikant Jha, Namami Shankar Jha, Guddu Jha, Santosh Kumar Jha, Raushan Jha, Prahlad Kumar Jha, Anand Kumar Jha, Mahant Mishra, Lala Mishra, and Kashikant Jha — all residents of Harinagar village under Kusheshwarsthan Police Station in Bihar’s Darbhanga district.
The case originated from Kusheshwarsthan P.S. Case No. 22 of 2026, registered under several stringent provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Allegations in the FIR
According to the prosecution, the dispute stemmed from an alleged disagreement over unpaid wages owed to the son of the informant, Asharfi Paswan. The FIR alleged that on January 1, 2026, the victim was returning home after buying vegetables when he was intercepted and assaulted by a large mob.
The complaint named nearly 70 individuals and claimed that another 100 to 150 unidentified persons were also part of the attack. The assailants were allegedly armed with iron rods, axes, sickles, and bricks. The FIR further alleged that casteist abuses were hurled during the incident and that certain accused persons attacked the victim on the head with an iron rod following an alleged instruction to kill him.
Following their arrest, the accused approached the Exclusive Special Judge under the SC/ST (POA) Act in Darbhanga seeking bail. However, their plea was rejected on February 18, 2026, after which they moved the Patna High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the accused had been falsely implicated and that the FIR contained exaggerated allegations involving an unusually large number of named and unnamed persons. The defense emphasized that the victim’s medical report reflected only a single injury, despite claims of a brutal mob attack involving hundreds of people.
The appellants further argued that no specific role had been assigned to most of the accused and that the allegations were broadly worded without clear attribution of individual acts. The defense also informed the Court that a similarly situated co-accused had previously been granted bail by the High Court in a separate proceeding.
It was additionally submitted that the accused had no criminal antecedents and had remained in judicial custody since February 1, 2026.
Opposing the bail plea, the Special Public Prosecutor and counsel for the informant contended that the assault involved targeted violence against members of the Scheduled Caste community and that the seriousness of the allegations justified continued detention.
Court’s Observation and Order
After hearing both sides and examining the records, Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey observed that although the allegations were grave, the prosecution had failed to attribute any clear and specific overt act to the appellants individually.
The Court noted that the allegations against the accused appeared “general and omnibus” in nature and also took into consideration the period of custody undergone by the appellants, their clean antecedents, and the fact that similarly situated co-accused had already secured bail.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court allowed both criminal appeals and set aside the earlier order of the Special Court. The Court directed that all 12 appellants be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 each along with two sureties of the like amount before the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Darbhanga.
