Patna High Court
SAURABH KUMAR YADAV @ SAURABH KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act exists and the allegations are not denied.
Summary
The appellant, Saurabh Kumar Yadav, was charged with offences including dowry demand, assault, robbery, and caste-based harassment under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498A, 494, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(w)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge and appealed before the Patna High Court. The court noted that the informant’s allegations of dowry demand, eviction from the matrimonial home, and caste insults were not contested, establishing a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act. The court also observed that a different yardstick had been applied in a related anticipatory bail order for other appellants, but that did not favor the present appellant. Consequently, the High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant in view of the alleged offences under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether a prima facie case exists under the SC/ST Act sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the yardstick applied in a prior anticipatory bail order for similar allegations is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 379, 494, 498A, 506
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(i)(w)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry demand
- SC/ST Act
- caste harassment
- IPC offences
- bail jurisprudence
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.28 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul
======================================================
SAURABH KUMAR YADAV @ SAURABH KUMAR S/O SURENDRA
YADAV RESIDENT OF BALWA PUNARWAS, WARD NO. 1, P.S. and
DISTRICT- SUPAUL
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. KANCHAN KUMARI D/O LAKSHMI RAM, W/O SAURABH KUMAR
YADAV @ SAURABH KUMAR RESIDENT OF BALWA PUNARWAS,
WARD NO. 1, P.S. and DISTRICT- SUPAUL
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nawal Kishor Singh
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 15-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special PP for the State, Ms. Usha Kumari 1.
2. The appellant has challenged the order dated
02.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st,
Supaul in connection with ABP No.763 of 2024 arising out of
SC/ST Complaint Case No.17 of 2023, instituted for the
offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498A, 494 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(w)(r)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, whereby his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been
rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.28 of 2025(5) dt.15-05-2026
2/3
appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that she was married to the
appellant and the accused persons including the appellant after
marriage started demanding Rs. 3 Lacs and threatened that if
demand is not met, appellant’s second marriage would be
performed, further, the dispute was resolved by Supaul Mahila
Police Station, but the accused persons again started demanding
dowry, it is next alleged that all accused persons on 18.02.2022
abused her by taking caste name and ousted her from her
matrimonial home and appellant was married to Sonali.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant next submits
that Surendra Yadav and Punam Devi had approached this Court
seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4947 of
2024 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated
22.04.2026, on which the learned Special PP submits that
Surendra Yadav and Punam Devi were father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the informant and order dated 22.04.2026 in
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4947 of 2024 recorded that yardstick for
considering anticipatory bail application of the appellants is
different from the yardsticks to be adopted for considering
anticipatory bail of Saurav.
5. The learned Special PP further submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.28 of 2025(5) dt.15-05-2026
3/3
allegation is of demand of dowry and the informant alleges that
she was ousted from her matrimonial home and Saurav
performed his second marriage with Sonali and from perusal of
the pleadings made in the instant appeal, it would manifest that
such specific allegation is not denied. It is also submitted that
cognizance in the case has been taken, as such, a prima facie
case under the SC/ST Act is made out.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the appellant.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands rejected.
8. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.