Patna High Court
Chhedilal yadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The High Court set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail and granted bail to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, four Yadav brothers, were charged under several IPC sections and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly forcibly taking harvested paddy, abusing and disrobing a woman on caste grounds. They contended that the FIR, lodged 20 days after the alleged incident, was delayed and that the accusations were false, stemming from a land dispute. The Additional Sessions Judge had rejected their anticipatory bail application. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined the nature of the allegations, the delay in filing the FIR, and the applicability of the SC/ST Act. Finding the prosecution case insufficient to justify denial of bail, the Court granted bail to the appellants and set aside the lower court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants under the IPC and SC/ST Act charges.
- Whether the 20‑day delay in lodging the FIR vitiates the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the alleged acts constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 379, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- delay in FIR
- land dispute
- criminal procedure
- bail
- caste based violence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3826 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2023 Thana- NIRMALI District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Chhedilal yadav Son of Late Ghoghan Yadav R/V- Village- Mahua, P.S.-
Nirmali, Distt.- Supaul
2. Jagarnathi yadav Son of Late Ghoghan Yadav R/V- Village- Mahua, P.S.-
Nirmali, Distt.- Supaul
3. Sikendra Kumar Yadav Son of Chhedi Lal Yadav R/V- Village- Mahua, P.S.-
Nirmali, Distt.- Supaul
4. Dharmendra Yadav Son of Chhedi Lal Yadav R/V- Village- Mahua, P.S.-
Nirmali, Distt.- Supaul
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chandrakala Devi Wife of Maujelal Ram R/V- Village- Mahua, P.S.-
Nirmali, Distt.- Supaul
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Hriday Narayan Harshit, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. Public Prosecutor
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 15-01-2026 Despite valid service of notice, none appears on
behalf of the respondent no. 2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the
State.
3. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
02.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Supaul in ABP No. 504 of 2024
arising out of Nirmali P.S. Case No. 282 of 2023 registered
under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 504, 506/34 of the Indian
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3826 of 2024(5) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(f)(g), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of appellants has been
rejected.
4. As per F.I.R., on 1.12.2023 at about 10:30 AM,
when informant was in her field, these appellants, variously
armed, came there and forcibly started taking away the
harvested paddy crop. Upon objection, the accused persons
abused the informant by caste name and disrobed her.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are innocent and have committed no offence. As a
matter of fact, appellants have falsely been implicated in this
case due to land dispute. F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate
delay of 20 days without any plausible explanation, which itself
raises doubt over veracity of the prosecution case. Allegation
against appellants is general and omnibus. Rest of the
allegations are ornamental. It is not the case of informant that
alleged incident occurred within public view and as such, no
case under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants.
6. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. Considering the nature of accusation and delay in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3826 of 2024(5) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
lodging the F.I.R., let the appellants, as named above, in the
event of their arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks
from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Supaul in ABP No. 504
of 2024 arising out of Nirmali P.S. Case No. 282 of 2023.
8. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and
impugned order dated 02.07.2024 is set aside with respect to
these appellants only.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…