Patna High Court
Chand Kishore Yadav @ Chandra Kishore YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the trial court’s refusal of anticipatory bail and granted bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The appellant, Chand Kishore Yadav, appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the trial court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a complaint alleging offences under IPC Sections 341, 323, 504 and SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(r)(s). The appellant argued that notice had been duly served on the second respondent, who failed to appear, and that the allegations were vague and he had a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail. The High Court held that the trial court’s refusal was not justified, set aside the order, and granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court was justified in refusing anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the service of notice and the appellant’s clean antecedent warrant grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482(2) CrPC to set aside the lower court’s order.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 482
- Indian Penal Code
- land dispute
- scheduled castes
- scheduled tribes
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.303 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2023 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE
District- Madhepura
======================================================
Chand Kishore Yadav @ Chandra Kishore Yadav S/o Ashok Yadav R/o vill -
Lakshminia, ward no. 5, P.S.- Ghailarh, Distt.- Madhepura
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pinki Devi W/o Bablu Kumar, D/o Natho Sada R/o vill - Lakshminia, ward
no. 5, P.s.- Ghailarh, Distt.- Madhepura
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 02-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Special P.P. for the State.
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 11.11.2025 in A.B.P. No. 1300 of 2025 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Madhepura in connection with Complaint
Case No. 33 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as
well as Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.303 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
from perusal of the office report dated 22.06.2026, it would
manifest that the same records that ordinary notice has been
validly served upon the respondent no. 2, but then respondent
no. 2 despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and contest.
4. It is next submitted that appellant is a person
with clean antecedent and 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
and the informant alleges that the accused persons assaulted her,
it is next alleged that her father-in-law was assaulted by fist on
account of which he suffered redness in the eye. It is next
submitted that as fr as appellant is concerned, the allegation
against him is general and omnibus in nature. It is also
submitted that even allegation of abuse is general and omnibus
in nature. It is further submitted that this perhaps explains why
informant despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and
contest.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State opposes the
appeal.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the order dated 11.11.2025 in A.B.P.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.303 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026
3/3
No. 1300 of 2025, is hereby set aside and the appellant above-
named, in the event of his 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)
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 Complaint Case No. 33 of 2023 subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the
BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.