Patna High Court
Anand Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, setting aside the lower court’s order denying bail.
Summary
Anand Kumar Yadav was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for assaulting an informant’s family, using caste slurs, and causing injuries. He sought anticipatory bail, arguing a clean antecedent, a 23‑day delay in filing the FIR, lack of medical evidence, and that co‑accused persons in similar circumstances had already been granted bail. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The Court noted the appellant’s clean record, the unexplained FIR delay, and the precedent of bail to co‑accused, and held that these factors justified granting anticipatory bail subject to conditions. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the trial court’s order rejecting bail and directing that the appellant be released on bail upon surrender with a bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the court in granting anticipatory bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in view of the appellant’s clean antecedent and delay in FIR filing?
- Does the similarity of the appellant’s case to that of co‑accused who were granted bail warrant a similar relief?
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), 117, 126, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 329(3), 351(2), 352, 76
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- delay in FIR
- clean antecedent
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1847 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani
======================================================
Anand Kumar Yadav Son of Sita Ram Yadav vill-Khajauli , P.S.- Khajauli,
Dist- Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ashok Kumar Ram Modhri Ram vill- khajauli, P.S.- Khajauli
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumari Pallavi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Although the
notice has been validly served upon respondent No.2, there is no
representation on his behalf.
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
07.04.2025 passed by learned ADJ-1st-cum- Special Judge
SC/ST Act, Madhubani, in A.B.P. No. 492 of 2025 in connection
with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025, registered under Sections
191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 126, 117, 303(2), 76, 329(3), 352,
351(2) of the B.N.S read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)
and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1847 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026
2/4
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 26.012025 at
about 11:00 P.M., the appellant along with other co-accused
persons, namely, Govind Kumar Yadav, Indal Yadav, Prahlad
Yadav, Munna Yadav, Manish Kumar, Sonu Yadav, Hari Yadav,
Bhogendra Yadav and Manoj Yadav entered the house of the
informant and started assaulting him repeatedly and abusing him
by taking his caste name. On being rescued by Mamta Devi
(wife of the informant) and America Devi (Mother of the
informant), Anand Kumar (appellant) outraged the modesty of
the informant’s wife by tearing her cloth and also beating the
mother of the informant due to which she got injury in her waist
bone. It is further alleged that the co-accused Govind Yadav
snatched the mangalsutra and nose ring from Mamta Devi. On
hulla, the commotion started and everyone entered the house of
one Anita Devi and started misbehaving with her family
member and they also broke the asbestos house. Further, the
informant was taken to Sadar Hospital, Madhubani, for
treatment.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the appellant bears clean antecedent and is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1847 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026
3/4
innocent. Learned counsel further submits that there is an
unexplained delay of 23 days in lodging the present FIR. No
injury report has been brought on record to substantiate the
alleged injuries. From bare perusal of the FIR it would evident
that there is no specific allegation or any overt act alleged
against the appellant. Moreover, co-accused persons, namely,
Hari Yadav, Manish Kumar Yadav, Indal Yadav, Manoj Yadav
and Govind Kumar Yadav have already been granted the
privilege of anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1696 of 2025 dated 25.11.2025 and the
case of the appellant is similar to that of the aforesaid co-
accused. As regards allegation of abuse with the caste 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 appellant. Hence, the impugned order may
be set aside and the appellant may be granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1847 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026
4/4
to the appellant.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and also the fact that the appellant bears clean
antecedent coupled with the fact that there is an unexplained
delay of 23 days in lodging the FIR and the fact that the co-
accused persons, having more or less similar allegations, have
already been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, let the above named appellant in
the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned ADJ-1st-cum- Special Judge SC/ST
Act, Madhubani, in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 10 of
2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2)
of the B.N.S.S/Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 07.04.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellant is, hereby, set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…