Patna High Court
Tuna YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of a specific allegation under the SC/ST Act and given the appellant’s prolonged custody, bail must be granted, setting aside the lower court’s order.
Summary
The appellant, Tuna Yadav, was charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting a woman and later a group of persons, including the informant, on 4 February 2025. The prosecution alleged that Yadav, along with co‑accused, used obscene language, physical force, weapons and even fired a weapon, also snatching a gold locket. Yadav contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR did not specifically allege any offence by him under the SC/ST Act, and that he had no intention to disgrace the informant’s caste. The Special Public Prosecutor and the informant opposed bail, while the appellant’s counsel argued lack of specific allegation and the long period of custody already endured. The High Court, noting the absence of a specific charge against Yadav under the SC/ST Act and the duration of his pre‑trial detention, set aside the lower court’s order and granted bail on condition of a bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- The existence of a specific allegation against the appellant under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite multiple serious charges, considering the period of pre‑trial custody.
- Whether the lower court's denial of bail was justified in view of the evidence presented.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 351(2)(3), 352, 74
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(ii)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- pre‑trial detention
- assault
- Arms Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3248 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2025 Thana- Dhobaha District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Tuna Yadav Son of Deo nath yadav R/o Village - Salempur, P.S. - Dhobahan,
Dist. - Bhojpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suraj Kumar Son of Bharat Ram R/o Village - Salempur, P.S. - Dhobaha,
Dist. - Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajiv, Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the Informant : Mr. Vishwanand Upadhyay, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the
informant. Perused the case diary.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Bhojpur at Ara whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in
connection with Dhobahan PS Case No. 15 of 2025 instituted
under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 74, 109(1),
303(2), 352, 351(2)(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3248 of 2025(3) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(ii)(va)
of SC/ST Act was rejected.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 04.02.2025 at
about 2:30 P.M., appellant along with Bhim Yadav allegedly
misbehaved with Tanu Kumari by using obscene language and
pulling her arms when she protested while going to the field,
and thereafter and when the informant and his family members
went to enquire about the incident, appellant along with other
accused persons abused them, which led to a violent assault by
the co-accused armed with lathi, danda and iron rod, causing
injuries to several persons, followed by firing by co-accused and
snatching of a gold locket during the occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
From perusal of the FIR, it would manifest that there is no
specific allegation against the appellant and the same is
attributed to other co-accused person. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the appellant has not taken the
caste name of the informant in public view. Hence, no offence
under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against him. The
appellant has no intention to disgrace the image of the informant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3248 of 2025(3) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
in public view. The appellant is in custody since 19.05.2025
and has two criminal antecedents.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, there being no specific allegation against the
appellant and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner,
this Court is inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed and order dated 16.06.2025 passed by learned
1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Bhojpur at Ara is hereby set aside.
7. Let the appellant be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Dhobahan PS Case
No. 15 of 2025.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…