Patna High Court
Baijnath YadavversusThe State of Bihar And others
- 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.
Summary
The appellants Baijnath Yadav, Sarita Devi and Navjeevan Anand appealed against the trial court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The informant alleged that the appellants, after a petroleum retail licence was cancelled, assaulted her, used caste slurs and demanded money while she was trying to demarcate leased land. The appellants contended that the case was false, the licence had been cancelled, the FIR was lodged after a 23‑day delay and the allegations were vague. The High Court examined whether the trial court erred in denying bail and considered the effect of the FIR delay and the nature of the allegations. It set aside the trial court’s order, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond and two sureties, and imposed conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNS Act. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act in the present facts.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing anticipatory bail despite the delay in filing the FIR.
- Whether the allegations constitute offences under the SC/ST Act and the BNS Act warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the appellants were falsely implicated and thus entitled to bail.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- false case
- FIR delay
- lease dispute
- Section 14-A
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3219 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Araria
======================================================
1. Baijnath Yadav S/O Late Kashinath Yadav R/O Village- Madhura Dakshain,
Ward No. 04, P.S- Narpatganj, Distt.- Araria.
2. Sarita Devi W/O Baijnath Yadav R/O Village- Madhura Dakshain, Ward No.
04, P.S- Narpatganj, Distt.- Araria.
3. Navjeevan Anand S/O Baijnath Yadav R/O Village- Madhura Dakshain,
Ward No. 04, P.S- Narpatganj, Distt.- Araria.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Anr.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Special PP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 02-04-2026 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 20.06.2025 in A.B.P. No. 793 of 2025 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Araria in connection with Araria SC/ST
P.S. Case No. 40 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3219 of 2025(4) dt.02-04-2026
2/4
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 308(3), 76,
303(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Section 3(2)(va)
of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellant nos. 1 and 3 have antecedent of one case and appellant
no. 2 is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and the
informant alleges that a retail outlet license by a petroleum
company was issued in her favour, further informant for running
the outlet had obtained a piece of land on lease from the
leaseholder and the rent fixed was Rs. 2 Lakhs per year, next
alleges that informant had gone for getting the land demarcated,
when accused persons including the appellants came and abused
her by taking caste name and demanded an amount of Rs. 5
Lakhs for allowing her to get the land demarcated and even
assaulted and tore her cloths.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that no doubt a license for
retail outlet of petroleum was granted to the informant in lieu
whereof a lease was executed in her favour, but then the license
got cancelled, as such, the appellants intended to get their land
back when the instant false case came to be instituted raising a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3219 of 2025(4) dt.02-04-2026
3/4
dispute. It is also submitted that informant against the
cancellation of her license has approached this Court by filing
CWJC No. 18755 of 2024 which was taken up on 17.12.2024
and it was observed that any action by the corporation shall be
subject to the result of the present writ petition. It is next
submitted that the informant with an intent to usurp the leased
land has instituted the instant case. It is also submitted that the
date of occurrence is 23.11.2024 and the FIR has been instituted
on 17.12.2024 i.e. after a delay of more than 23 days, which
also casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is next
submitted that as far as allegation of assault and abuse is
alleged, the same is general and omnibus in nature.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State as well as the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes
the appeal.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the order dated 20.06.2025 in A.B.P.
No. 793 of 2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Araria in
connection with Araria SC/ST P.S. Case No. 40 of 2024, is
hereby set aside and the appellants above-named, in the event
of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3219 of 2025(4) dt.02-04-2026
4/4
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 Araria SC/ST P.S. Case No. 40 of 2024 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…