Patna High Court
Sano Yadav @ Sanu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Sano Yadav, was charged under several IPC sections and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act for an alleged assault at the informant's house. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge. On appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the appellant argued that the notice was served but the informant failed to appear, and that the allegations were vague and he had a clean record. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The Patna High Court examined the submissions, found the refusal unjustified, and set aside the lower court's order, granting anticipatory bail with a bond and sureties, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal to grant anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act was justified.
- Whether the allegations against the appellant were sufficiently specific to deny bail.
- Whether the service of notice and the informant's non‑appearance affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 149, 323, 341, 427, 448, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
- notice service
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1103 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2024 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
Sano Yadav @ Sanu Yadav S/O Suresh Yadav @ Suresh Prasad Yadav R/O
Vill.- Manjhauli, P.S.- Fatehpur, Dist.- Gaya.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arjun Manjhi S/O Late Bhade Manjhi R/O Vill.- Badki Kuhari, P.S.-
Fatehpur, Dist.- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 13-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special P.P. Ms. Usha Kumari No.1 for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 08.10.2024 in A.B.P. No. 305 of 2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in connection with
Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2024 registered under Sections
147, 149, 448, 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1103 of 2025(6) dt.13-07-2026
2/3
perusal of the office report dated 02.07.2026, it would manifest
that the notice was validly served upon the informant but then
informant despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and
contest. It is further submitted that appellant is a person with
clean antecedent and the informant alleges that eight named
accused persons including the appellant came to his house on
05.04.2024 at 7.30 P.M. and assaulted causing injury on head.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that there is no specific
allegation of abuse and as far as allegation of assault is alleged
the same is also not specific rather is general and omnibus in
nature and the entire occurrence took place at the house of the
informant and thus was not in public view. It is thus submitted
that this perhaps explains why informant despite receiving
notice chooses not to appear and contest.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the submissions, the order impugned
is set aside. Let the appellant, above named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1103 of 2025(6) dt.13-07-2026
3/3
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where
the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.