Patna High Court
BHATAN YADAV @ NIRAJ YADAVversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail, and granted bail to the appellants subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, a group of Yadavs from Gandhi Nagar, were charged under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 308 and 504 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting an informant and his brothers with weapons and caste‑based abuse. The FIR was lodged ten days after the alleged incident, which the appellants argued indicated a weak prosecution case. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Exclusive Special Judge on 21‑05‑2022. On appeal, the High Court considered the nature of the accusations, the delay in filing the FIR, and the appellants' clean antecedents. The Court held that bail should be granted conditionally, requiring surrender within eight weeks and furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000 with two sureties. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside for the appellants.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the Special Judge in granting or refusing anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act?
- Does the ten‑day delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of specific allegations affect the merits of the bail application?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- caste violence
- SC/ST Act
- delay in FIR
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2068 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Bhatan Yadav @ Niraj Yadav Son Of Rameshwar Yadav Resident Of Gandhi
Nagar, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District- Gaya
2. Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Kumar Son Of Niraj Yadav Resident Of Gandhi
Nagar, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District- Gaya
3. Ramautar Yadav @ Ramautar Prasad Son Of Rameshwar Prasad Resident
Of Gandhi Nagar, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District- Gaya
4. Birendra Yadav Son Of Rameshwar Yadav Resident Of Gandhi Nagar, P.S.-
Buniyadganj, District- Gaya
5. Pramod Yadav @ Pramod Adhikari Son Of Bramdeo Prasad Resident Of
Gandhi Nagar, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District- Gaya
6. Sanjeet Yadav @ Sanjit Kumar Son Of Chhote Lal Yadav Resident Of
Gandhi Nagar, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District- Gaya
7. Vijay Pan @ Vijay Kumar Pan Son Of Pradeep Kumar Pan Resident Of
Gandhi Nagar, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District- Gaya
8. Madhu Kumari D/O- Ramautar Prasad Resident Of Gandhi Nagar, P.S.-
Buniyadganj, District- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Ganesh Chaudhary Chandar Chaudhary Resident of Gandhi Nagar, Police
Station-Mufassil, District-Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Syed Asgher Najmi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 02-07-2026 Despite valid service of notice, none appears on
behalf of the respondent no. 2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the
State.
3. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2022(5) dt.02-07-2026
2/3
21.05.2022 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST,
Gaya in ABP No. 98 of 2022 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case
No. 195 of 2022 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
308, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of
appellants has been rejected.
4. As per F.I.R., these appellants assaulted informant
and his brothers by means of lathi, danda, iron rod. It is further
alleged that the accused persons also abused them by caste name
and threatened with dire consequences.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are innocent and have committed no offence. As a
matter of fact, petty dispute over a cow led to an altercation in
which both sides sustained injuries. Allegation against
appellants is general and omnibus. No specific allegation of any
overt act against the appellants. F.I.R. has been lodged after
inordinate delay of 10 days which itself falsifies the prosecution
case. It is not the case of informant that alleged incident
occurred within public view and as such, no case under SC/ST
Act is made out against the appellants. Appellants claim clean
antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2022(5) dt.02-07-2026
3/3
6. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. Considering the nature of accusation, delay in
lodging the F.I.R. and clean antecedents, let the appellants, as
named above, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a
period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in connection
with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 195 of 2022.
8. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and
impugned order dated 21.05.2022 is set aside with respect to
these appellants only.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.