Patna High Court quashes assault case against Bihar Minister Santosh Kumar Suman

The Patna High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against Bihar Minister Santosh Kumar Suman alias Santosh Manjhi, son of Union Cabinet Minister Jitan Ram Manjhi, in a 2017 case relating to rioting, road blockade, and assault on a police officer during a protest in Bodh Gaya [Santosh Kumar Suman vs. State of Bihar].

Justice Sandeep Kumar held that the materials on record did not disclose any allegation that Suman had assaulted anyone or participated in violence, noting that the only allegation against him was that he was addressing the gathering.

Suman is currently the Minister for Minor Irrigation and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare in the Bihar government. He is also the son of  Jitan Ram Manjhi, the Union Cabinet Minister for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises.

The case arose from an incident on April 1, 2017, when the Station House Officer (SHO) of Bodh Gaya police station registered a self-statement alleging large-scale violence during a road blockade at Domuhane Chowk in Gaya district.

According to the FIR, the police had received information about a road block, following which officials reached the spot and found several people burning tyres, raising slogans, and misbehaving with travellers. The gathering was allegedly armed with lathis, dandas and other weapons.

The prosecution alleged that Santosh Kumar Suman, along with others, was addressing the gathering using a loudspeaker.

When government officials, including the Block Development Officer (BDO), asked the protestors to disperse, they were told that the agitation was over the alleged failure to arrest an accused in a Magadh University case and over demands relating to the medical examination of a woman.

The FIR further alleged that despite assurances by officials, the protest did not stop.

It claimed that some accused persons instigated the crowd, leading to the alleged insult of a woman wearing a burqa.

During the chaos, an SHO was allegedly assaulted multiple times, suffering injuries to his head and hand. It was also alleged that a tempo passing through the area was attacked, causing damage to its glass panes.

Based on these allegations, the police registered a case under a wide range of serious provisions, including rioting, unlawful assembly, assault on a public servant, outraging the modesty of a woman, causing grievous hurt, kidnapping, mischief, provisions of the Bihar Police Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

In February 2021, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, took cognizance of the offences, prompting Suman to approach the High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings.

Before the High Court, Suman’s counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated due to political rivalry and that the only allegation against him was that he addressed the gathering.

It was submitted that there was no claim that he had assaulted anyone, instigated violence, or damaged public property.

The State opposed the petition but fairly conceded that the FIR only alleged that Suman was addressing the crowd and did not attribute any specific act of assault or violence to him.

After examining the FIR and hearing the parties, the High Court held that the prosecution's case, even if taken at face value, did not make out any offence against Suman.

The Court explained that the allegations of assault, damage and misbehaviour were attributed to other accused persons, and not to Suman.

It noted that merely addressing a gathering, without any allegation of instigation or participation in violence, could not justify criminal prosecution for such serious offences.

The Court recorded that a careful reading of the FIR showed no allegation that Suman had assaulted the SHO or any other person, or that he had played any active role in the violent acts described.

In view of this, the High Court concluded that continuation of criminal proceedings against Suman would be an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the Court allowed Suman's petition and quashed the criminal proceedings. While doing so, it clarified that the quashing was only in respect of Suman and not the other accused.

Suman was represented by advocates Dinu Kumar, Ritika Rani, and Vardhan Mangalam.

The State was represented by advocate Jharkhandi Upadhyay.

[Read Order]