Patna High Court
Pappu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The High Court held that the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to conditions, as the allegations of caste abuse were not made in public view and the FIR delay undermines the prosecution’s case.
Summary
The appellants were accused of assaulting an informant and his relatives over a dispute concerning a she‑goat, with allegations that they used caste‑based slurs. The prosecution charged them under several provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the trial court rejected their application for anticipatory bail. The appellants contended that the FIR was lodged eight days after the incident, the alleged caste abuse did not occur in public view, and the charges were exaggerated. The Special Public Prosecutor could not refute these points, and the High Court noted the lack of material to substantiate the allegations and the procedural delay. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court’s order, and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Sections 438 and 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in offences punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse was made in public view, attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the eight‑day delay in lodging the FIR warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the charges under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita are maintainable in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2), 351(2), 351(3)(5), 352, 482(2), 76
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste abuse
- delay in FIR
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2344 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Pappu Yadav Son of Shri Badri Yadav Resident of Village and Post- Goasi,
Ps - K. Nagar, Dist- Purnea
2. Gourav Yadav @ Gourav Kr. yadav Son of Shri shobhakant Yadav Resident
of Village and Post- Goasi, Ps - K. Nagar, Dist- Purnea
3. Badri Yadav son of Late Baijnath Yadav Resident of Village and Post- Goasi,
Ps - K. Nagar, Dist- Purnea
4. Mantu Yadav Son of Shri Badri yadav Resident of Village and Post- Goasi,
Ps - K. Nagar, Dist- Purnea
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanjay Paswan Son of Shri Dhaneshwar Paswan Resident of Village and
Post- Goasi, Ps - K. Nagar, Dist- Purnea
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. No one
appears on behalf of respondent No.2.
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
16.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum
Special Judge (SC/ST) Purnea, in A.B.P. No. 19 of 2025, in
connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 110 of 2024, registered
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 76, 303(2), 352,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2344 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
2/5
351(2)/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, and Section
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant
alleged that on 08.12.2024 at 09:00 AM, he after tying his sea-
goat to graze in a field went to ply his vehicle. When he came
back his home at 07:00 PM, his wife told that Badri Yadav
(appellant No. 3) had taken away their she-goat. Thereafter, on
the next day, i.e., on 09.12.2024, at 07:00 AM, when the
informant went to the house of Badri Yadav and asked about his
she-goat, he was asked to come in the evening. In the evening,
at 07:00 PM, when the informant went to the house of Badri
Yadav and asked about the she-goat, the accused-appellants
armed with rod and khanti, rushed towards the informant and
Badri Yadav abusing the informant by taking his caste name
exhorted the other accused persons to assault him, upon which
appellant Pappu Yadav and Gaurav Yadav inflicted rod blow, as
a result of which the informant received injury on his head and
fell down, thereafter all the accused persons assaulted him.
When the brother-in-law of the informant, namely, Munna
Paswan, and Lalita Devi, the wife of brother-in-law of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2344 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
3/5
informant, came to his rescue, accused Badri Yadav thrashed
Lalita Devi on the ground by her hair and assaulted her. It is also
alleged that they apart from assaulting Munna Paswan, the
appellants also tried to strangulate him by pressing his neck and
Gaurav Yadav inflicted rod blow on his head, which he tried to
defy by his hand, resulting into fracture in his palm. It is also
alleged that they also tore the clothes of Lalita Devi and Badri
Yadav and Mantu Yadav took out Rs.5,000/- from the pocket of
the informant and on arrival of the passersby, their lives were
saved. They even did not turn up for panchayati.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
there is delay of eight days in lodging the present FIR without
any plausible explanation. The dispute arose on account of
grazing of she-goat. The allegation with respect to Section 76
and 303(2) of the BNS is ornamental in nature and has been
made with a view to make the case serious. As regards, the
allegation of abusing with the caste name attracting the rigors of
SC & ST Act is concerned, it is submitted that the place of
occurrence is alleged to be a public place, but it is not alleged
that any public was present so as to attract the provisions of
SC/ST Act. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside and
the appellants may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2344 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
4/5
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
appellants. However, he could not controvert the submissions
advanced on behalf of the appellants that the allegation of abuse
does not appear to be made within the public view.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and also the fact that there is delay of eight days in
lodging of the FIR and the allegation of abuse with caste name
does not appear to be made within the public view coupled with
the fact that despite entering of appearance through
vakalatnama, there is no representation on behalf of the
informant and no material is there on the record to substantiate
the allegations levelled in the FIR, 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 learned learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge (SC/ST), Purnea, in
connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 110 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2344 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
5/5
impugned order dated 16.04.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the appellants is set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
U T
Checking your session…