Patna High Court
Bhola Yadav@Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and allowed the appeal, granting anticipatory bail to the appellant subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The appellant Bhola Yadav appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case where he was charged under several sections of the B.N.S, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted an informant and his brother, but the appellant argued that the FIR was lodged after a six‑day delay, the alleged offences (except for one under the SC/ST Act) are bailable, and no caste‑based abuse was attributed to him. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the FIR allegations. The High Court observed that there was no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act against the appellant and that the other charges were bailable, and therefore granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC. The order refusing bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
- Whether the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act apply to the appellant.
- Whether the offences alleged in the FIR are bailable in nature.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- bailable offences
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
- arms offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1761 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2024 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Bhola Yadav@Santosh Kumar Son of Late Lal Mohar Yadav Village- Suara,
(Suara Tola), P.S.- Baghaila, District -Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kaushal Kumar son of Basant Paswan village- Mahuari, Ps- Akodhi gola,
Dist- Rohtas
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna,Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 05-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This appeal has been preferred under Sections
14(A)(2) against refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by
order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Court of Addl.
District and Sessions Judge-XVII-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Rohtas in connection with Akodhigola P.S. Case No.199 of
2024 registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2),
115(2), 303(2), 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S and Sections 3(i)(r)
(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(POA) Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on account of
some dispute, all the accused persons started abusing and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1761 of 2025(4) dt.05-01-2026
2/3
assaulting the informant and his brother Kaushal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset
submits that it would be apparent from the F.I.R itself that F.I.R
has been lodged after a delay of six days and barring Section
303(2) of the B.N.S and provisions of the SC/ST Act, all other
sections are bailable in nature. Since the allegation itself is that
the accused persons had come to the house of the informant,
hence, there is no question of any public view and provisions of
SC/ST Act would not be attracted. Further, the allegations of
caste based abuses is not attributed to these appellants. The
appellants undertake to co-operate in investigation/trial.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants based
upon the allegation made in the F.I.R.
6. In view of the fact there is no allegation what-so-
ever with regard to any caste based abuses, no offence under the
provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act prima
facie seems to be made out against the appellants.
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that
allegations of assault and hurling caste based abuses is upon
other accused persons and not the appellants herein, let the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1761 of 2025(4) dt.05-01-2026
3/3
appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest to surrender
before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the
date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on
furnishing each of them bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Court of Addl. District and Sessions
Judge-XVII-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Rohtas in
connection with Akodhigola P.S. Case No.199 of 2024, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and subject to the following conditions:-
(I) One of the bailors shall be the close
relative or family members.
(II) The appellants shall co-operate in the
investigation/trial and in case it is found that appellants
are not co-operating in the investigation, the
prosecution would be at liberty to move for cancellation
of bail.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…