Patna High Court
Sanjay YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail as the allegations of caste‑based abuse and kidnapping are not substantiated by the evidence.
Summary
The appellant, Sanjay Yadav, appealed against the rejection of his anticipatory bail application filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in connection with a case registered for offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. The prosecution alleged that Yadav, along with others, planned to kill three persons, abused an informant using her caste name, assaulted her husband, and kidnapped her father‑in‑law. The defence argued that the allegations were false, stemming from village rivalry, and highlighted that the father‑in‑law’s statement under Section 164 CrPC denied any kidnapping and that no caste slur was uttered in public. The High Court, after considering the statement under Section 164 and the lack of evidence of a public caste insult, granted anticipatory bail and set aside the lower court’s order. The appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks and furnish bail bonds with sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in view of the alleged caste‑based abuse and kidnapping.
- Whether the evidence, including the statement under Section 164 CrPC, sufficiently substantiates the allegations against the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 164, 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 504, 506
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based offence
- false implication
- kidnapping
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1551 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-860 Year-2023 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Sanjay Yadav S/o Ayodhya Yadav R/o vill - Gartakhund tola, P.S. - Barachatti
(Mohanpur), Distt - Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kaushalya Devi W/o Shankar Manjhi R/o vill - Mohanpur Tola, Nutan
Bigha, P.s. - Mohanpur, Distt. - Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 23-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. No one appears for the opposite party no. 2.
3. An order, dated 10.01.2024, passed by learned
Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gaya, in ABP No. 449 of
2023, is under challenge in the present appeal preferred under
Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the anticipatory
bail application of the appellant in connection with Barachatti
(Mohanpur) Police Station Case No. 860 of 2023 registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(r)(s) of the Schedule
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1551 of 2024(6) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been
rejected.
4. As per the prosecution case, on 27.08.2023, the
appellant, along with other accused persons, were planning to
kill three persons. It has further been alleged that appellant
wanted to establish illicit relationship with the informant and
when objected, he abused the informant by her caste name. The
husband of the informant was also assaulted and further
allegation is that the father-in-law of the informant was
kidnapped by the appellant on 06.09.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has falsely been implicated in this case due to village
rivalry. The statement of informant's father-in-law was recorded
under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in which he has flatly denied
the allegation of his kidnapping and has also not supported the
prosecution story. There is no allegation that the appellant called
the informant by her caste name in full public view. The
appellant has no criminal antecedent.
6. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf
of the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the
father-in-law of the informant recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. and the fact that the caste name was not taken in the full
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1551 of 2024(6) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
public view, I am inclined to grant the appellant privilege of
anticipatory bail.
7. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the order,
dated 10.01.2024, passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Gaya, in ABP No. 449 of 2023, is set aside.
8. Let the appellant, above named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Special Court, Gaya, in connection with Barachatti (Mohanpur)
Police Station Case No. 860 of 2023, subject to the condition
laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure/Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.