Patna High Court
Jairam Yadav @ Saurav KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The appeal is partly allowed; the order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside and anticipatory bail is granted to appellant 1 subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The appellants challenged a Special Judge's order refusing anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, in a family dispute, abducted and assaulted the respondent's daughter, invoking several offences under the Bihar National Security Act, 2023 and the SC/ST Act. The appellants contended they were falsely implicated, that the FIR lacked any language attracting the SC/ST Act, and that the allegations were merely a by‑product of the underlying dispute. The court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal by appellant 2 and dismissed it as not pressed. For appellant 1, the court set aside the lower court’s refusal of anticipatory bail, directing that he be released on anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR in the present case attracts the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether the Special Judge was justified in refusing anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted notwithstanding the alleged offences under the Bihar National Security Act, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- FIR
- scheduled caste atrocities
- criminal appeal
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3094 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2025 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Jairam Yadav @ Saurav Kumar Son of Bulla Yadav @ Indradeo Yadav R/O
Vill -Saluganj, P.S- Muffasil, District- Nawada.
2. Gulshan Yadav @ Gulsan Kumar S/O Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar Yadav
R/O Vill -Saluganj, P.S- Muffasil, District- Nawada.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Umesh Chaudhary Son of Chhotan Chaudhary R/O Village- Varma, P.S-
Mufassil, Distt.- Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Kumar Lalit, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
For the Respondent no. 2: Mr.Birendra Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Spl. P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
appellants prays for and is permitted to withdraw the appeal on
behalf of appellant no. 2.
3. Accordingly, the appeal on behalf of appellant no. 2
stands dismissed as not pressed.
4. So far as appellant no. 1 is concerned, he prefers
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3094 of 2025(3) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.06.2025 in
A.B.P. No. 1221 of 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Exclusive Special Court, S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Nawada in
connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 139 of 2025 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 329
(4), 74, 109 and 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Sections 3 (1)
(r) (s) of the SC/ST Act.
5. The case of the prosecution is that there was
dispute between the son of the respondent and one Nandlal
Yadav. Due to this dispute, the appellants along with others
arrived at the house of the respondent at about 9:30 P.M. where
they are said to have taken the respondent’s daughter from the
house and assaulted her with slaps and fists.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is
further submitted that the nature of allegation is general and
omnibus in nature and are merely an outcome of the existing
dispute between the son of the respondent and the appellants. So
far as Harijan Atrocities Act is concerned, it has been submitted
by the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no single
word in the FIR to attract the atrocities Act.
7. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3094 of 2025(3) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
the appeal.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the order dated 17.06.2025 in A.B.P.
No. 1221 of 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Exclusive Special Court, S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Nawada in
connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 139 of 2025 is hereby
set aside and the appellant no. 1 above-named, in the event of
his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned court below where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 139 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of
the BNSS.
9. Accordingly the appeal stands partly allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…