Patna High Court
Indrajeet Kumar Yadav @ Indrajit YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that while anticipatory bail could be extended, the existence of cognizance meant the appeal was to be disposed with a direction for the appellants to surrender before the trial court.
Summary
The appellants, Indrajeet Kumar Yadav and Bajranj Kumar Yadav, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several IPC provisions for allegedly seizing land belonging to a widow, assaulting her and her son, and using caste slurs. They sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge. On appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the High Court examined the police’s final report that exonerated the appellants and the trial court’s cognizance of the case despite that report. The Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail but held that, because cognizance had already been taken, the appeal could not be entertained further. Consequently, the appeal was disposed and the appellants were directed to surrender before the trial court on a specified date, where the case would be decided on the same day, taking into account the police exoneration and the Court’s observations.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the trial court’s refusal of anticipatory bail was justified despite the police’s exonerating report.
- Whether cognizance of the offence precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 119(1), 126, 351(2), 352, 76
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- land dispute
- atrocity
- criminal procedure
- section 14-A
- bail
- scheduled castes
- scheduled tribes
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2721 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Indrajeet Kumar Yadav @ Indrajit Yadav S/O Bajrang Kumar @ Bajrang
Yadav R/o - Piprahi, P.S - Ladaniya, District - Madhubani.
2. Bajranj Kumar @ Bajrag Yadav S/O Subhag Lal Yadav @ Subhak Lal
Yadav R/o - Piprahi, P.S - Ladaniya, District - Madhubani.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sushila Devi W/O Late Balkrishna Mehra R/O Village- Sktiyahi, P.S-
Khutauna, Distt.- Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 12-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 16.06.2025 in A.B.P. No. 973 of 2025 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Madhubani in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 91 of 2024
registered under Sections 126, 115(2), 119(1), 76, 352, 351(2)
and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 2721 of 2025(4) dt.12-05-2026
2/4
(i) and 3(2)(va), 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellant no. 1 is a person with clean
antecedent and appellant no. 2 has antecedent of one case and
the informant alleges that she is a widow and her husband had
purchased a land about 28 years back, on which a hut was
constructed and her husband died in the year 2008 and
thereafter, the informant, in connection with study of her
children, moved out of the village and taking advantage of her
absence Bajrang (appellant no. 2) along with his son Indrajeet
(appellant no. 1) and others captured her land and started a car
washing unit and a shop for selling articles as detailed in the
FIR. Further, when the informant requested Bajrang to vacate
the land, he abused by taking caste name and tried to strangulate
her and Indrajeet assaulted her son by rod causing injury on
back.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on
account of dispute relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place. It is next submitted that the land belongs to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 2721 of 2025(4) dt.12-05-2026
3/4
the appellants but then the informant is claiming that the land
was purchased by her husband but then no documents have been
annexed with the FIR showing that the land belongs to the
informant. It is also submitted that the police, after
investigation, submitted final form exonerating the appellants of
the allegation as alleged in the FIR but then the learned trial
court took cognizance differing with the police report. It is
submitted that when one investigating agency, after threadbare
investigation, came to a considered conclusion that appellants
are innocent, whether it would be prudent for the Court to send
the appellants to jail based on an order of cognizance which
came to be taken based on the same police report which
exonerated the appellants of the allegation.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant are not in
a position to rebut the said submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants but then the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that
differing with the police report, the Court has taken cognizance,
hence, a prima facie case is made out.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 2721 of 2025(4) dt.12-05-2026
4/4
bail to the appellants but since cognizance has been taken, as
such, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellants
to surrender before the learned trial court on 27.05.2026. If the
appellants surrender on 27.05.2026, the learned trial court shall
consider and dispose of the case on the same day keeping in
mind the fact that the police after investigation submitted final
form exonerating the appellants of the allegation as alleged in
the FIR and also the observations of this Court as recorded
hereinabove.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.