Patna High Court
Ratan Yadav @ Ram Ratan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and granted bail to the appellants subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The appellants, Ratan Yadav and Gautam Yadav, were charged under multiple sections of the Bihar Penal Code, the Arms Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged extortion, looting of wheat, caste-based abuse and firing at an informant. The informant claimed the accused demanded Rs.2 lakh on 31‑03‑2025, received only Rs.10,000, and later looted his crop on 07‑04‑2025 while also abusing him with caste slurs. The appellants contended that the FIR was unreliable, that the informant should have reported the extortion immediately, and that the case stemmed from a land dispute, rendering the accusations false. The Special Judge denied anticipatory bail, prompting an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The Patna High Court, noting the lack of confidence in the FIR and the possibility of false implication, granted anticipatory bail subject to bond and surety conditions, setting aside the lower court’s order. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- The propriety of granting anticipatory bail to the appellants despite the seriousness of the offences alleged.
- Whether the FIR and the allegations therein inspire confidence to justify denial of bail.
- Applicability of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the present case.
- Whether the allegations constitute a false implication arising from a land dispute.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Penal Code (B.N.S.) — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 303(2), 308(3), 308(4), 308(5), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- extortion
- caste-based atrocity
- false implication
- land dispute
- criminal procedure
- Section 14-A
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2884 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2025 Thana- MORKAHI District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Ratan Yadav @ Ram Ratan Yadav S/o Late Basudev Yadav R/o Village-
Chandra Nagar (Ranko), P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- khagaria
2. Gautam Yadav S/o Ratan Yadav @ Ram Ratan Yadav R/o Village- Chandra
Nagar (Ranko), P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- khagaria
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arwalal Paswan S/o Late Gadho Paswan R/o Vill- Sabalpur, P.S.- Morkahi,
Distt- Khagaria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
Mr. Jai Kishor Poddar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 30-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Spl. P.P. for the State and the 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 24-6-2025 in A.B.P. No 44 of 2025 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Khagaria in connection with Morkahi P.S.
Case No. 58 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2884 of 2025(4) dt.30-06-2026
2/4
under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 308(3),
308(4), 308(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS and
Section 27 of Arms Act as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the
SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have antecedent of two cases and the informant
alleges that on 31-3-2025 he had gone on his land given by the
government where wheat was sown, further Ram Pravesh Yadav
along with other named accused persons including the
appellants came and demanded an extortion of Rs. 2 lakh and
threatened that if extortion is not paid, the wheat crop would be
looted, as such the informant gave Rs. 10,000/-, it is next
alleged that since Rs. 1.90 lakh by way of extortion could not be
paid to the accused persons including the appellants as such the
accused persons came on 7-4-2025 and looted the wheat crop
and also abused the informant by taking caste name and Ram
Parvesh fired but missed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is
next submitted that the allegations as alleged in the FIR does not
inspire confidence for the reason that it does not appear
probable that had extortion been demanded by the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2884 of 2025(4) dt.30-06-2026
3/4
persons including the appellants from the informant on 31-3-
2025 and informant would have parted with Rs. 10,000/- in that
event the informant would not have waited till 7-4-2025 for the
accused to come and loot his wheat crop rather would have
approached the concerned police station and would have
instituted an FIR that extortion is being demanded and threat is
being posed. It is also submitted that as far as allegation of
abuse is alleged, the same is general and omnibus in nature as it
does not appear probable that all accused in one go would have
abused the informant by taking caste name. It is next submitted
that allegation of firing is ornamental in nature as no one was
injured. It is further submitted that the case is to be viewed in
backdrop of a land dispute.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the appellants but then the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant is not in a position to rebut
the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants that the informant did not institute an FIR when
extortion was demanded rather waited for the accused persons
to come and loot his wheat crop.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellants
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2884 of 2025(4) dt.30-06-2026
4/4
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.