Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Bikram Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The appellate court set aside the lower court’s refusal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant with conditions.

Summary

The appellant, Bikram Kumar Yadav, was charged under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bihar Penal Code, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly abusing and threatening an informant with a pistol over a commercial dispute. The Special Judge under the SC/ST Act refused his prayer for anticipatory bail on 21‑08‑2025. The appellant appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, contending that he has a clean record and that the allegations are false and unsupported by independent witnesses. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the lower court’s refusal was unwarranted and granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.5,000 and two sureties, with conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Code. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case instituted under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
  • Whether the allegations against the appellant under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are sufficient to deny bail.
  • Whether the lower court erred in refusing bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • SC/ST Act
  • caste based offence
  • Section 14-A
  • Section 482
  • bail conditions
  • criminal appeal

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.314 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-493 Year-2025 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Bikram Kumar Yadav S/O Late Hazari Yadav R/O Village - East Ashok
                 Nagar, (R.M.S. Colony, Lohiyanagar), Road No.- 14B, P.S- Kankarbagh,
                 District- Patna

                                                                                 ... ... Appellant/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Raj Kumar Ram S/o- Ram Briksha Ram Resident of R.M.S. Colony, Lohiya
                 Nagar, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    :        Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha
                 For the Respondent/s   :        Mr. Sadanand Paswan
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   02-07-2026                 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned

                   Special P.P. 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 21.08.2025 in A.B.P. No. 2702 of 2025 passed by

                   the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST Act, Civil Court

                   (Sadar) Patna in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 493

                   of 2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of

                   the BNS, 2023 as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.314 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026
                                             2/3




                       3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

          alleges that on 06.06.2025, the appellant booked tent and other

          articles on the occasion of his Grih-Pravesh and paid

          Rs.10,000/- by way of advance on 02.06.2025, further the

          appellant came to the shop on 03.06.2025 and started abusing by

          taking caste name and even threatened and pointed pistol at him.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant. It is next submitted that a dispute arose with regard

          to the rate of the tent and other articles, which the appellant

          required for his grih-pravesh, as such an altercation took place

          hence the informant in anger instituted the instant case alleging

          that he was abused. It is further submitted that the FIR does not

          even remotely suggest that the occurrence was witnessed by any

          independent witnesses when it is being alleged that the

          occurrence took place at his shop.

                       5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned

          counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer

          for anticipatory bail.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the appellant, let the appellant, above named, in the
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.314 of 2026(3) dt.02-07-2026
                                                          3/3




                       event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below

                       within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the

                       order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of

                       Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of the like

                       amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where

                       the case is pending 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

                       this appeal stands allowed.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.