Patna High Court
Lalu Yadav @ Lallu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside, granting the appellants anticipatory bail subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The appellants, Lalu Yadav and Raju Yadav, were charged under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly assaulting members of a Scheduled Caste community during a wedding ceremony. They filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which was rejected by the Special Judge. The appellants contended that a prior FIR filed by them against the informant was earlier in time and that the dispute was a mere scuffle over the marriage procession route, without any intention to demean the Scheduled Caste community. The court, noting the existence of a counter‑case and the prior FIR, held that anticipatory bail could be granted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the earlier order was set aside, and the appellants were directed to obtain bail on furnishing bonds and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act is appropriate when a prior FIR exists against the complainant.
- Whether the alleged conduct amounts to an offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether the existence of a counter‑case negates the ground for denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 324(5), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(i) r, 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- caste violence
- counter FIR
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 14-A
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3304 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2025 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Lalu Yadav @ Lallu Yadav Son of Naresh Yadav @ Nresh Yadev Resident
of Village -Dhanauti PS-Nauhatta District -Rohtas
2. Raju Yadav son of Naresh yadav @ Nresh Yadev Resident of Village
-Dhanauti PS-Nauhatta District -Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bhola Nath Paswan Son of Late Chandrashekhar Paswan Resident of Village
-Dhanauti PS-Nauhatta District -Rohtas
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashwani Kumar Tiwary
For the State : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Abhishek Singh Rathaur
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-04-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Counsel
for the Opposite Party No. 2 and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. An order, dated 21.07.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST, Rohtas, at Sasaram, is under challenge in
the present appeal preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the anticipatory regular
bail application of the appellant in connection with
Nauhatta Police Station Case No. 138 of 2025, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3304 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
2/4
126(2)/115(2)/118(1)/352/351(2)/3(5) of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 (i) r/3 (i) (s) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been rejected.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that on 29.04.2025, the wedding ceremony of the
daughter of one Anklesh Yadav was going on, in which
the informant and members of his community, were
invited. While they were eating and were sitting on chairs
for having dinner, the appellants, after seeing the
informant and members of his community got agitated
and started abusing them. The appellants brought
lathis/dandas and started assaulting the informant and
other members of his community. The appellants turned
off the generator, assaulted them and also broke the
bolero vehicle of the groom and its glass and also
threatened to falsely implicated the informant and his
community members in a false case.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that the present First Information Report has been
lodged as a counter blast to Nauhatta Police Station Case
No. 137 of 2025, lodged against the informant and others,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3304 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
3/4
registered under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/324(5)/352/351
(2)/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging
therein that on 24.05.2025, while the marriage ceremony
was going on, at about 3 AM, the informant and other
accused persons arrived there with lathi/danda, started
abusing and damaged the bolero vehicle of the groom and
told that marriage procession would not be allowed to
proceed on the hill top and they would not allow the
marriage ceremony to be completed. The First
Information Report lodged by the side of the appellants is
prior in time to the present First Information Report. It
has further been submitted that the scuffle between the
parties took place on the ground of leading the marriage
procession on a particular route. There was no intention to
demean and humiliate the members of the Scheduled
Caste community. Both are co-villagers and due to minor
scuffle, simple injuries have caused to the side of the
informant.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party
No. 2 vehemently opposes thew prayer for bail and
submits that the appellants are named in the First
Information Report and they called the informant and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3304 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
4/4
members of his community by their caste name.
6. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that
both the parties are co-villagers, there is case and counter
case between them, the case lodged by the side of the
appellants is prior in time and the scuffle took place in the
marriage ceremony of one Anklesh Yadav, I am inclined
to grant the appellants privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order, dated
21.07.2025, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST,
Rohtas, at Sasaram, in connection with Nauhatta Police
Station Case No. 138 of 2025, is set aside.
8. Let the appellants, above named, in the event of arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, SC/ST,
Rohtas, at Sasaram, in connection with Nauhatta Police
Station Case No. 138 of 2025.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.