Patna High Court
Prabhu Yadav @ Prabhu Prasad YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The High Court set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail and granted bail to the appellants subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The appellants appealed against the order of the District and Additional Sessions Judge who had denied their prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with others, attacked landless Mahadalits who were sleeping in their fields, fired arms, hurled caste slurs and set fire to stored wheat. The appellants contended they had clean antecedents, the FIR was delayed, and the allegations were vague and arose out of a pending land dispute, arguing that the alleged abuse was not made in a public place. The High Court examined the nature of the offences, noting that the IPC offences were bailable, the alleged arms offence lacked evidence of violence, and the caste abuse did not occur in public view. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s order, and granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Sections 482(2) and 438(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellants under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act in view of the alleged offences.
- Whether the alleged offences under the IPC and the Arms Act are bailable and justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse was committed in a public place as required under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the pending land dispute and title suit affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 427, 435, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 27, 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste violence
- land dispute
- arms offence
- IPC bailable offences
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1955 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2024 Thana- Rangara District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Prabhu Yadav @ Prabhu Prasad Yadav S/O Late Awadh Kishore Yadav @
Late Awadhi Yadav R/O Village- Latra, P.S- Gopalpur, Bhagalpur.
2. Phulo Yadav S/O Late Awadh Kishore Yadav @ Late Awadhi Yadav R/O
Village- Latra, P.S- Gopalpur, Bhagalpur.
3. Rajesh Kumar @ Deepak Yadav S/O Phulo Yadav R/O Village- Latra, P.S-
Gopalpur, Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vinod Harijan S/O Late Prasadi Harijan R/O Village- Koshkipur, P.S-
Rangra, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl PP
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for Respondent No. 2 and learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been directed against the order dated
24.03.2025 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Bhagalpur, in A.B.P.
No. 352 of 2025 in connection with Rangra P.S. Case No. 19 of
2024, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 435,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1955 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
427, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act
read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant
has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant along
with other landless Mahadalits, has received land settlement
certificates for one acre land each from the land belonging to
Mouza- Gobindpur Koshli, Revenue Thana No. 89, Account No.
1907, Khasra 1797, total area 179.45 acres of Bihar
Government Gairmajrua Khas land. The informant and others
had harvested the wheat from their respective fields and stored it
in the fields. It is further alleged that on 17.04.2024, they had
slept on their fields, in the meantime, at 1 A.M., the appellants
along with 4-5 unknown persons came with arms and started
firing at them. It is further alleged that co-accused Lalan Yadav
and Pankaj Yadav hurled caste based slurs and threatened to kill
them and other accused persons set fire to the stored wheat,
thereafter, all the accused persons left and threatened them with
dire consequences.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the appellants bear clean antecedent and are
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1955 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
innocent. It has further been submitted that there is delay of two
days in filing the present F.I.R., without giving any plausible
explanation for the same. He further submits that it appears
from the F.I.R. itself that there is general and omnibus allegation
against the appellants and nothing specific has been alleged
against them. It has also been submitted that there is serious
land dispute between the parties and a title suit bearing Title
Suit No. 23 of 2019 is pending between the parties. 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. 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
and learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 have vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
appellants and submits that the appellants are aggressors and are
creating hindrance in the peaceful possession of the land-in
question and there is also allegation that the appellants and
others resorted to fire.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1955 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
the case and the fact that there is serious land dispute between
the parties and a title suit is also pending between them and
offences of the IPC being bailable in nature and as regard the
offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act there is no
recovery/mark of violence at the place of occurrence to
substantiate the allegation and the allegation does not seem to
have been committed within public view because it happened in
1 A.M., in the agricultural field, 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 District and
Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST) Act,
Bhagalpur, in connection with Rangra P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024,
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 24.03.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants is, hereby, set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…