Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Arnesh Kumar Yadav @ Arnesh Kumar @ Anresh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail and dismissed the appeal.

Summary

The appeal sought to set aside the trial court's order refusing anticipatory bail to two accused charged with cheating, fraud, assault and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleged that the informant invested over Rs 6 lakh in a company run by the accused, which later defaulted and the accused assaulted him with caste slurs. The appellants argued they were innocent, that the allegations were vague, that there was a three‑year delay in filing the complaint and that no specific overt act was detailed, contending that the SC/ST Act could not apply. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the specific accusations, the seriousness of the offences and the role of the appellants as authorized signatory and organizer. Considering the direct nature of the accusations, the gravity of the offences and the lack of any mitigating factor, the bench rejected the anticipatory bail and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused in offences under IPC sections 323, 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B and SC/ST Act section 3(i)(v)(r).
  • Whether the allegations constitute a cognizable offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
  • Whether the three‑year delay in filing the complaint defeats the grant of anticipatory bail.
  • Whether the specificity of the accusations is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • IPC
  • SC/ST Act
  • cheating
  • fraud
  • assault
  • caste based harassment
  • delay in complaint
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3366 of 2024

                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Saran
                 ======================================================
           1.    Arnesh Kumar Yadav @ Arnesh Kumar @ Anresh Kumar Son of Uma Nath
                 Rai @ Uma Nath Yadav R/O Vill.- Ladpur, P.S.- Garkha, Dist.- Saran At
                 Chapra Bihar
           2.    Shailesh Kumar Pandit @ Shailesh Pandit Son of Phuldeo Pandit R/O Vill.-
                 Mohiya, P.S.- Garkha, Dist.- Saran At Chapra.

                                                                                    ... ... Appellant/s
                                                        Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Rajdeo Ram Son of Babulal Ram R/O Vill.- Pirari, P.o.- Gopul, P.S.-
                 Garkha, Dist.- Saran at Chapra.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellants      :        Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
                 For the Informant       :        Mr. Mukesh Kumar Suman, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

8   29-01-2026                 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned

                   Spl.PP      for    the    State      and      learned      counsel       for   the

                   informant/Respondent No. 2.

                               2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order

                   dated 04.06.2024, passed in a case registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 323, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of

                   the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(v)(r) of the Scheduled

                   Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3366 of 2024(8) dt.29-01-2026
                                             2/4




          whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of these appellants has

          been rejected.

                       3.    As per the prosecution case, informant, namely

          Rajdeo Ram, alleged that all the named accused persons,

          including these appellants, induced him to invest money in their

          company with the assurance of lucrative returns. At the instance

          of the accused persons, the informant/Respondent No. 2

          deposited more than 6 lacs rupees and when he went to receive

          the matured amount in the year 2017, the accused persons

          postponed the payment on one pretext or another and finally on

          10.08.2020, when the informant went to take his money and

          called the accused persons to Garkha Bazar, all the accused

          persons came there, assaulted him and abused him by caste

          based slurs and thus, all the accused persons, including these

          appellants, cheated the informant and defalcated the invested

          amount.

                       4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the appellants that appellants are quite innocent and

          have committed no offence. Allegation of assault is general and

          omnibus and no specific accusation of overt act has been alleged

          against these appellants. Moreover, as per allegations, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3366 of 2024(8) dt.29-01-2026
                                             3/4




          alleged company fled away in the year 2017 whereas the present

          complaint petition was filed after inordinate delay of three years

          in the year 2020, which itself makes the entire prosecution case

          doubtful. The F.I.R. does not disclose that any member of public

          was present at the alleged incidence and as such, no case under

          the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes              (Prevention of

          Atrocities) Act Act is made out against these appellants.

          Appellants claim clean antecedents.

                       5. On the other hand, learned Special PP for the State

          and learned counsel for the informant/Respondent No. 2 have

          vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

          the appellants and submitted that appellants are named in the

          F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with other

          accused persons, cheated the informant and defalcated a huge

          sum of money invested by him. Appellants also assaulted the

          informant and abused him by caste name. Appellant No. 1 is the

          authorized signatory who took deposits from the investors and

          Appellant No. 2 is one of the organizer of the company having

          his code as 10439.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3366 of 2024(8) dt.29-01-2026
                                                          4/4




                       offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants

                       is rejected and this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.



                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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