Patna High Court
Vinesh Yadav @ Vinesh Rai @ Vinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order refusing bail is set aside and bail is granted to the appellants with conditions.
Summary
The appellants, four Yadav brothers, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several sections of the B.N.S., 2023 for allegedly assaulting the informant, Geeta Devi, in a land‑dispute context. They contended that the FIR was filed a day after the alleged incident, was false and fabricated, and that they were falsely implicated. The Special Judge had refused regular bail, prompting the appellants to file an appeal under Section 14(A)(ii) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court examined the bail petition, the criminal antecedents of the appellants, and the allegations of injury to the informant, and concluded that the refusal of bail was not justified. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order, granted bail to each appellant on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, and imposed conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to regular bail under Section 14(A)(ii) of the SC/ST Act despite the serious nature of the charges.
- Whether the refusal of bail by the Special Judge was justified on the basis of the FIR and the appellants' criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352, 61(2), 76
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14(A)(ii), 3(i)(r)(s)(w)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- false FIR
- land dispute
- criminal antecedent
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
- criminal appeal
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1815 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2026 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Vinesh Yadav @ Vinesh Rai @ Vinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav Son
of Jalim Rai @ Ram Janam Rai Resident of Village- Dumarbana Pakridayal,
Ward No. 9, P.S.- Pakridayal, District- East Champaran
2. Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav @ Ranjeet Rai @ Ranjit Kumar Son
of Jalim Rai @ Ram Janam Rai Resident of Village- Dumarbana Pakridayal,
Ward No. 9, P.S.- Pakridayal, District- East Champaran
3. Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Rai Son of Shri Rai @ Shri Bhagwan Rai @
Bhagawan Yadav Resident of Village- Dumarbana Pakridayal, Ward No. 9,
P.S.- Pakridayal, District- East Champaran
4. Bala Yadav @ Bala Rai Son of Shri Rai @ Shri Bhagwan Rai @ Bhagwan
Yadav Resident of Village- Dumarbana Pakridayal, Ward No. 9, P.S.-
Pakridayal, District- East Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Geeta Devi Wife of Late Hari Paswan Resident of Village- Pakridayal, Ward
No. 9, P.S.- Pakridayal, District- East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Harsha Shashwat, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Prateek Tandon, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-07-2026 Heard Ms. Harsha Shashwat, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, Mr. Prateek Tandon, learned counsel
for the Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(ii) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1815 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
2/4
of prayer for regular bail vide order dated 12.08.2025 passed by
the learned Special Judge SC/ST, East Champaran, Motihari in
connection with Pakaridayal P.S. Case No. 127 of 2026, F.I.R.
dated 14.03.2026 registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2),
115(2), 109(1), 118(1), 61(2), 76, 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023
and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. Allegation against the appellants is that they along
with other co-accused persons have assaulted to the informant due
to which she sustained injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in
the present case. She further submits that the allegations as alleged
in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the appellants have not
committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. From perusal of the
F.I.R. it appears that the date of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R.
is 13.03.2026 but the F.I.R was instituted on 14.03.2026 after
delay of one day afterthought only to falsely implicate the
appellants in the present case. Although there is specific allegation
against the appellants that they have assaulted to the informant and
she has received injury but from perusal of the impugned order it
appears that she has not received any injury and apart from that the
appellants have been made accused in the present case due to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1815 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
3/4
admitted land dispute between the parties. She further submits that
the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the
appellant and the appellant is in custody since 15.03.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 as well as
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand,
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and
submits that the from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the
appellants have participated in the crime in question and informant
has received injury and apart from that appellant no. 1 carries
twelve cases other than the present one, appellant no. 2 carries
seven more cases other than the present one, appellant no. 3 carries
three more cases other than the present one, appellant no. 4 carries
three more cases other than the present one but fairly submits on
the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition that all the appellants
are on bail in the pending matters.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
let the appellants, above named, 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 Special Judge
SC/ST Act, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with
Pakaridayal P.S. Case No. 127 of 2026, with the following
conditions :-
(1) Appellants shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1815 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
4/4
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on
their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason,
their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the appellants tamper with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for
cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellants and in case at any
stage, it is found that the appellants have concealed their criminal
antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
bond of the appellants. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.