Patna High Court
Lallu Kumar @ Lallu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; anticipatory bail is not maintainable once cognizance is taken for offences under the SC/ST Act.
Summary
The appellants, three brothers, were charged under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged offences. They applied for anticipatory bail, which the trial court rejected, prompting this appeal. The State argued that anticipatory bail could not be entertained because the trial court had already taken cognizance of the offences under the SC/ST Act, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar. The High Court examined the applicability of that precedent and held that once cognizance is taken for offences under the SC/ST Act, pre‑arrest bail is not maintainable. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's refusal of anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when cognizance has been taken for offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar is binding on the present case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 126(2), 324(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1060 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- JAMHOR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Lallu Kumar @ Lallu Yadav Son of Shiv Pujan Yadav Village -Pethari PS
-Jamhore District -Aurangabad
2. Bir Bahadur Kumar Son of Shiv Pujan Yadav Village- Pethari PS -Jamhore
District -Aurangabad
3. Sintu Kumar Son of Shiv Pujan Yadav Village- Pethari PS -Jamhore District
-Aurangabad
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nitish Kumar Son of kamlesh Paswan Village- Pethari PS -Jamhore District
-Aurangabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
For the Informant : Ms. Alka Panday, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Spl.PP for the State and learned counsel for the
informant/Respondent No. 2.
2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order
dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned 1st District and
Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in connection with
A.B.A. No. 367 of 2025 arising out of Jamhore P.S. Case No. 05
of 2025 which was registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1060 of 2025(5) dt.16-04-2026
2/2
B.N.S. and Sections 3(1), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
of these appellants has been rejected.
3. At the outset, it is submitted by learned Spl.P.P.
appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the
informant/Respondent No. 2 that the prayer for grant of pre-
arrest bail to the appellants is not maintainable, as cognizance
has already been taken by the learned trial court for the offences
punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this regard, reliance is placed
upon the case of Bachu Das Vs. State of Bihar and others
reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 471.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and
pronouncement of law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bachu Das (supra), appellants’ prayer for grant of
pre-arrest bail is rejected and this appeal stands dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…