Patna High Court
Mithilesh Kumar Yadav @ Mithilesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail and set aside the order rejecting it.
Summary
Mithilesh Kumar Yadav and his wife Sima Devi were accused of blocking a public path, assaulting Sushma Devi and her family, and using caste‑based slurs on 11‑Nov‑2024. The FIR, filed 12 days later, invoked several provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants sought anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the Act, arguing clean antecedents, lack of specific allegations, delay in filing the FIR, and absence of an injury report or a public‑place offence. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The High Court, noting the clean antecedent and the questionable nature of the allegations, granted bail on condition of bond and sureties, and set aside the lower court’s order denying anticipatory bail. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the FIR and the alleged conduct constitute an offence punishable under the SC/ST Act given the alleged lack of public view and injury.
- Whether the 12‑day delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 14A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- obstruction of public path
- assault
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1598 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Mithilesh Kumar Yadav @ Mithilesh Yadav Son of Late Durga Yadav
Village- Kolharua, P.s- Bodhgaya Gaya, District -Gaya
2. Sima Devi Wife of Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithilesh Kumar Yadav Village-
Kolharua, P.s- Bodhgaya Gaya, District -Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sushma Devi Wife of Banwari Paswan Village- Kolharua, Po- Padariya, P.s-
Bodhgaya Gaya, District -Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Brijmohan Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl PP
For the Respondent No. 2 : Md. Javed Jafar Khan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for the Respondent No. 2 as well as learned Special
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been directed against the order dated
20.03.2025 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST,
Gaya in A.B.P. No. 70 of 2025 in connection with SC/ST P.S.
Case No. 59 of 2024, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S read with Section 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1598 of 2025(6) dt.13-02-2026
2/4
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 11.11.2024 at
about 6:00 P.M., Mithilesh Yadav (appellant no. 1) blocked
public path by dropping an electric pole in front of the door of
Sushma Devi's (informant) house, causing commuting
difficulties for her family. Thereafter, when the informant began
filling area with soil to restore the access, at that moment, the
appellants along with their associates arrived and started
assaulting the informant by means of lathi and danda and hurled
caste-based slurs at her and Aman Kumar (son of Mithilesh
Yadav) threatened to kill the informant and her family members.
Accordingly, the FIR has been lodged.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the appellants bear clean antecedent and are
innocent. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. itself
that there is general and omnibus allegation levelled against the
appellants and nothing specific has been alleged against them. It
is further submitted that there is a delay of 12 days in lodging
the FIR without giving any plausible explanation for the same.
No injury report has been brought on record to substantiate the
alleged injuries. As regards allegation of abuse with the caste
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1598 of 2025(6) dt.13-02-2026
3/4
name attracting the rigours of SC & ST Act is concerned, it is
not committed in a public place nor any person has been named
to be present at the place of occurrence when the alleged offence
of abuse was being committed. He further submits that no case,
as alleged in the F.I.R, attracting rigours of SC & ST Act, is
made out against the appellants. Hence, the impugned order
may be set aside and the appellants may be granted the privilege
of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
as well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
appellants.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that the appellants bear clean antecedent
and the allegation does not seem to have been committed within
public view, let the above named appellants in the event of their
arrest/surrender within a period of six 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
the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya, in
connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 59 of 2024, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1598 of 2025(6) dt.13-02-2026
4/4
B.N.S.S/Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 20.03.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants is, hereby, set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…