Patna High Court
Pinku Yadav @ Pinku Kumar @ Amresh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the appellants were found to be part of a criminal gang and the allegations under the SC/ST Act were substantiated.
Summary
The appellants Pinku Yadav, Ranvir Yadav and Lallu Mukhiya were charged under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST Act for allegedly assaulting an informant and threatening him. Lallu Mukhiya (Appellant No. 3) withdrew his part of the appeal, leaving the case against Appellants No. 1 and 2. The appellants sought anticipatory bail, claiming they were falsely implicated and that the SC/ST Act did not apply. The court examined the FIR, noting that the two remaining appellants acted as henchmen of Lallu Mukhiya and had multiple prior criminal antecedents, indicating a criminal gang. Considering the seriousness of the offences and the risk of further disturbance, the court refused anticipatory bail, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the appellants to surrender within a week and apply for regular bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellants under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the facts disclose a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act against the appellants.
- Whether the withdrawal of Appellant No. 3 affects the continuation of the appeal against Appellants No. 1 and 2.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 308(2), 3(5)
- SC/ST Act — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal gang
- withdrawal of appeal
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1019 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-831 Year-2024 Thana- BARH District- Patna
======================================================
1. Pinku Yadav @ Pinku Kumar @ Amresh Kumar Son of Lalbabu Yadav @
Brahmachari Krishna Chandra Resident of Village - Tika Chak,
Mahammadpur, P.S. - Barh, District - Patna
2. Ranvir Yadav @ Ranvir Kumar Son of Late Ramvilash Prasad Resident of
Village - Gulab Bag, P.S. - Barh, District - Patna
3. Lallu Mukhiya @ Karnvir Singh Yadav Son of Late Ramvilash Prasad
Resident of Village - Gulab Bag, P.S. - Barh, District - Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Hira Das Son of Bal Govind Das Resident of Village - Purani Barh, P.S. -
Barh, District - Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
Mr. Binay Krishna
For the Res No.2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 12-03-2026 Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants,
the learned APP for the State, and the learned counsel for the
Respondent No. 2.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits
that an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2025
has been filed on behalf of Appellant No. 3, Lallu Mukhiya @
Karnvir Singh Yadav, seeking permission to withdraw Criminal
Appeal (S.J.) No. 1019 of 2025 so far as Appellant No. 3 is
concerned. It is further submitted that the appellant has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1019 of 2025(4) dt.12-03-2026
2/4
surrendered before the learned court below in connection with
Barh P.S. Case No. 98 of 2023 on 29.11.2025, has been
remanded to judicial custody, and is presently in judicial
custody.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory
application, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is allowed. Accordingly, the
present appeal filed on behalf of the Appellant No. 3, Lallu
Mukhiya @ Karnvir Singh Yadav is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. This case is now been limited to Appellant No. 1
and 2 only.
5. This appeal is preferred against the order dated
21.02.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge,
SC/ST (POA)Act, Patna passed in ABP No. 657 of 2025 arising
out of Barh P.S. Case No. 831 of 2024 registered for the offence
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 303(2), 308(2), 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(i)(r)(s),
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, by which the prayer of the appellants
for anticipatory bail was rejected.
6. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on
28.10.2024 at around 8:00 a.m., the petitioners, along with two
unknown persons, came to the house of the informant and took
him into their vehicle on the pretext that Lallu Mukhiya was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1019 of 2025(4) dt.12-03-2026
3/4
calling him. The informant was allegedly assaulted with the butt
of a pistol, and his mobile phone was snatched. While being
taken in the vehicle, the informant jumped out and, as a result,
fractured both his hands. The informant managed to flee.
Subsequently, the informant was being threatened through
mobile.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits
that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case and
no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out in this
case and therefore, this anticipatory bail application is
maintainable.
8. Learned counsel for the State and the learned
counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of the
appellants.
9. From the reading of the entire FIR, it appears that
two appellants are the henchmen of Lallu Mukhiya (Appellant
No. 3) and on the orders of Appellant No. 3, they have forced
the informant to come with them. Appellant No. 1 has one
criminal antecedent, Appellant No. 2 has 7 criminal antecedents,
and Appellant No. 3 has 13 criminal antecedents.
10. From the perusal of the entire material available
on record, it appears that it is a gang of criminals headed by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1019 of 2025(4) dt.12-03-2026
4/4
Lallu Mukhiya and they are creating havoc in the local area.
11. Considering the above facts and circumstances of
the case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory
bail to Appellant No. 1 and 2 in the present case.
12. Accordingly, the appeal for anticipatory bail is
dismissed.
13. The Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to
surrender in the concerned Court below within a period of one
week from today and seek regular bail, failing which the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Patna will take all steps for the arrest
of the appellants and he shall file a compliance report to this
Court within three weeks from today.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna through FAX for its
compliance forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…