Patna High Court
Mithlesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The High Court allowed anticipatory bail, setting aside the order rejecting it, on the ground that no explicit caste‑based abuse was alleged in public view.
Summary
The appellants were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several sections of the Bihar Penal Code for allegedly assaulting the informant Sursati Devi and her family during a wedding procession, including vulgar singing, physical assault, theft and threatening behaviour. The informant claimed the assault was motivated by her scheduled‑caste status, but the prosecution did not allege any explicit caste‑based abuse in public. The appellants sought anticipatory bail, arguing innocence, lack of criminal antecedents (except for two appellants), and a five‑day delay in filing the FIR. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail but conceded there was no explicit caste abuse. The High Court, considering the facts and the absence of a public caste‑abuse allegation, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties, and set aside the lower court’s order rejecting bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether the allegations constitute a caste‑based offence warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the five‑day delay in lodging the FIR affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- caste violence
- delay in FIR
- bail conditions
- criminal appeal
- assault
- theft
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2611 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2025 Thana- EKMA District- Saran
======================================================
1. Mithlesh Yadav Son of Birla Yadav Village- Hussepur, Ps- Ekma, Dist-
Chapra Saran
2. Yogendra Yadav @ Yogindra yadav son of Kamal yadav Village- Hussepur,
Ps- Ekma, Dist- Chapra Saran
3. Mithilesh Pandit son of Dipnarayan Yadav @ Dipnarayan Pandit Village-
Hussepur, Ps- Ekma, Dist- Chapra Saran
4. Anuj Yadav @ Anuj Kumar Yadav Son of Rambabu Yadav Village-
Hussepur, Ps- Ekma, Dist- Chapra Saran
5. Vikash yadav @ Vikash Kumar yadav Son of Harishankar yadav Village-
Hussepur, Ps- Ekma, Dist- Chapra Saran
6. Arbind Yadav @ Arbind Kumar son of Yogendra Yadav Village- Hussepur,
Ps- Ekma, Dist- Chapra Saran
7. Ankit Pandit @ Ankit Kumar Pandit Son of Shivpujan Pandit Village-
Hussepur, Ps- Ekma, Dist- Chapra Saran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sursati Devi Wife of Nandkishor Ram Village- Hussepur, Ps- Ekma, Dist-
Chapra Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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. At the very outset, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2611 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
2/5
appellant seeks permission to add alias name in the father’s
name of appellant no. 3.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. 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
19.06.2025 passed by learned Court of Exclusive Special Judge
Saran, Chapra, in connection with Ekma P.S. Case No. 175 of
2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 79 and
3(5) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the
appellants has been rejected.
5. As per the prosecution case, the informant,
namely Sursati Devi, alleged that on 30.04.2025, a wedding
procession was arrived at the neighbour’s house for a ceremony.
While barat was on the way, the accused person climbed on
tractor with vulgar songs and started vulgar activity. On being
opposed by the informant’s son, the appellants and the co-
accused persons abused and started beating him, anyhow her son
saved himself and came his house. Thereafter, the appellants and
the co-accused persons armed with stick, iron rod and knife
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2611 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
3/5
attacked on her house and assaulted all family members of the
informant due to which all were injured. She further alleged that
Arbind Yadav (appellant no.6) tore her cloth due to which she
became half nacked and when Chanda Devi came to save her,
Anuj Yadav (appellant no.4) tore her cloth due to which she also
became half nacked. It is further alleged that co-accused persons
Anand Yadav, Punita Kumari and Rinki Kumari snatched two
gold chains worth of Rs. 47,000/-. It is further alleged that all
the accused persons threatened the informant because she
belongs to scheduled caste and helpless woman and also
threatened that if she lodged any case then the accused persons
would set fire to her house.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence.
He further submits that the appellant nos. 2 to 5 and 7 have no
criminal antecedent and appellant nos. 1 and 6 have one
criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this appeal. It is
further submitted that the dispute arose on the question of
playing objectionable songs during course of barat which
resulted into quarrel. The offence under Section 303(2) appears
to be an exaggerated version by the side of the informant which
is only non-bailable sections of B.N.S. in the case. It is further
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2611 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
4/5
submitted that there is no allegation of abuse with caste name
rather it has been alleged that since the ladies of the prosecution
parties belong to scheduled castes, they have been subjected to
such assault. He further submits that there is delay of five days
in lodging the FIR. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside
and the appellants may be granted the privilege of anticipatory
bail.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
to the appellants but has fairly conceded that there is no abuse.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and also the fact that there is no allegation of abuse
within public view, 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 Court of Exclusive Special Judge Saran,
Chapra, in connection with Ekma P.S. Case No. 175 of 2025
subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 19.06.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2611 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
5/5
of anticipatory bail to the appellants is set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…