Patna High Court
Nakul Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Nakul Kumar Yadav, was charged with offences including rape, attempted rape, criminal intimidation, intentional insult, and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleged to have pretended marriage, had physical relations, refused to marry, and abused the complainant with caste slurs. He sought anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and lack of any public witness, while the State and the complainant opposed bail, emphasizing the specific and grave nature of the accusations. The High Court examined the seriousness of the charges, the direct allegations, and the applicability of the SC/ST Act. Finding the allegations serious and the accusations specific, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application. Consequently, the appeal against the order denying bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant in light of the serious charges under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the facts alleged constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the gravity and specificity of the accusations preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 34, 376, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- SC/ST Act
- caste harassment
- criminal intimidation
- marriage fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1546 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-912 Year-2025 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Nakul Kumar Yadav S/o Parmeshwar Yadav Resident of village - Chitkundi
Bara, P.S - Mufassil (Bibiganj), District - Bhojpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Neetu Kumari D/o Late Ramnaresh Ram R/o Village - Brahmpura, P.S -
Paru, District - Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ugresh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.PP
For the Informant : Mr. Utpal Kant, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-
State and learned counsel appearing for the
informant/Respondent No. 2.
2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order
dated 30.03.2026 passed in A.B.P. No. 4434 of 2025 arising out
of a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections
376, 313, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of this appellant has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1546 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/3
rejected.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
appellant came in contact with the informant/Respondent No. 2
and on the false pretext of marriage, established physical
relations with her and later on, refused to solemnize marriage,
abused her with caste based slurs and threatened her not to
disclose the ordeal to anyone.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that appellant is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Appellant has falsely been implicated in
this case only to pressurize him to solemnize marriage. It is
further submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that
any member of public was present at the place of occurrence
and as such, no case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against this
appellant. Appellant claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for
the respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for the
informant/Respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submitted that
appellant is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific accusation
that on the false pretext of marriage, he established physical
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1546 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
3/3
relations with the informant and later on, refused to solemnize
marriage and abused the informant/Respondent No. 2 with caste
based slurs.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant
is rejected and this appeal is dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.