Patna High Court
Virendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; anticipatory bail is not maintainable as cognizance has been taken under the SC/ST Act.
Summary
Virendra Yadav was charged under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He sought anticipatory bail, which the Special Judge rejected. On appeal, the State argued that 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 Patna High Court accepted this submission, held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable once cognizance is taken for such offences, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when cognizance of offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has already been taken.
- Whether the precedent set by Bachu Das v. State of Bihar (2014) SCC applies to bar anticipatory bail in this case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354B, 448, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s)
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.1355 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-620 Year-2023 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Virendra Yadav S/o Barho Yadav @ Badho Yadav R/o Village - Bumer Tola
Ambatari, P.S. Barachatti, Dist. - Gaya.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Savita Devi W/o Gaya Singh Bhokta R/o Village - Bumer Tola Ambatari,
P.S. - Barachatti, Dist. - Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl.PP for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order
dated 10.03.2026 passed by the learned Exclusive Special
Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Gaya Ji in connection with A.B.P.
Excl. Spl. SC/ST No. 63 of 2026 arising out of Barachatti P.S.
Case No. 620 of 2023 which was registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 448, 323, 504, 506 and 354B of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1355 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/2
appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, it is submitted by learned Spl.P.P.
appearing on behalf of the State that the prayer for grant of pre-
arrest bail to the appellant 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), appellant’s prayer for grant of
pre-arrest bail is rejected and this appeal stands dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.