Patna High Court
Aplesh Yadav @ Apalesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Aplesh Yadav, was charged under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) of the B.N.S. 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2v) of the SC/ST Act for allegedly firing on several persons and being part of an unlawful assembly that resulted in the death of an informant's husband. The bail application, previously rejected, was renewed after the appellant had been in custody for more than 1½ years. The prosecution argued that the appellant possessed a weapon and participated in the firing, while the defence contended that the SC/ST Act was inapplicable and that the appellant was merely a member of the assembly with no specific act of firing attributed to him. The court noted that similarly situated co‑accused had been granted bail and observed no flight risk. Consequently, the court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to attendance conditions during trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the provisions of the SC/ST Act are applicable to the appellant's alleged conduct.
- Whether the appellant's participation in an unlawful assembly and alleged possession of a weapon justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the appellant should be treated equally with co‑accused who have already been granted bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3)
- S.C./S.T. Act — s. 3(2v)
Subjects
- bail
- unlawful assembly
- caste violence
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- equality before law
- regular bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.338 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2024 Thana- Mufassil District- Khagaria
======================================================
Aplesh Yadav @ Apalesh Yadav S/O Late Dashrath Yadav R/O Vill.- Amni,
P.S.- Mansi, Dist.- Khagaria.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Mamta Devi W/O Late Rohit Ram R/O Vill.- Amni, P.S.- Mansi, Dist.- Kha-
garia.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 24-04-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. The appellant has renewed his prayer for bail in
connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 112 / 2024 dated
22.08.2024 corresponding to Special S.C. / S.T. G.R. No.
98 / 2024 registered under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1)
of the B.N.S. 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section
3(2v) of the S.C. / S.T. Act.
3. The bail application of the appellant was earlier
rejected by this court vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No. 5663 / 2024 with liberty to the appellant to
renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial does not
show any substantial progress.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.338 of 2026(5) dt.24-04-2026
2/4
4. The prosecution case in short is that on 22.08.2024
upon information that the appellant along with 9-10 co-accused
persons have surrounded Sanjeev Ram and were firing indis-
criminately upon him, the informant along with her husband and
others rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that all the
accused persons including the appellant were armed with lethal
weapons. When the informant and others intervened, they
started abusing and assaulting the informant, her husband and
others by caste name and also fired upon them due to which the
husband of the informant died by the firing made by Chhabila
Yadav. It has further been alleged that Suman Mishra fired upon
Sanjiv Ram, Chhotu Mishra fired upon Ranveer Ram and
Aplesh Yadav (i.e. appellant) fired upon Bhola Ram with an
intention to kill but somehow they were saved.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has falsely been implicated in this case along with his
brothers. Although six brothers of the appellant were named as
accused in this case but specific allegation of firing is against
Chhabila Yadav. He further submits that provisions of S.C. / S.T.
Act is not applicable in this case inasmuch as caste abuse was
not made in full public view. The appellant is merely a member
of unlawful assembly and no overt act has been alleged against
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.338 of 2026(5) dt.24-04-2026
3/4
him. Similarly situated co-accused Suman Mishra and Ajit Ya-
dav have been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 and 26.06.2025 respec-
tively in Cr. Appeal (SJ) Nos. 1142 of 2025 & 893 of 2025 and
Tejo Yadav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
30.01.2026 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4495 of 2025. The ap-
pellant is in custody since 23.08.2024.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and submits that appellant was
part of an unlawful assembly and was having weapon in his
hand and one of the members of that unlawful assembly fired
upon the informant’s husband due to which he died.
7. Regard being had to the submissions made by the
parties, taking into consideration the fact that similarly situated
co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court, the
appellant is in custody for more than 1½ year and there is no
flight risk of the appellant, accordingly, I am inclined to grant
regular bail to the appellant.
8. Let the appellant, above named, be released on
regular bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000 /- (rupees ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satis-
faction of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st cum Special
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.338 of 2026(5) dt.24-04-2026
4/4
Judge (S.C./ S.T.) Khagaria in connection with Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 112 / 2024 corresponding to Special S.C. / S.T. G.R.
No. 98 / 2024 subject to the condition that the appellant shall
remain present on each and every date during the course of trial
and in case of default on two consecutive dates without prior
permission of the trial court his bail bond shall liable to be
cancelled.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U T
Checking your session…