Patna High Court
Kumar Roshan @ Roshan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside and the appellant is granted anticipatory bail with conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Kumar Roshan Yadav, was charged under several IPC offences and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting an informant with caste slurs and physical violence. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge. On appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the CrPC, the Patna High Court examined whether the allegations specifically implicated the appellant and whether the conduct amounted to an offence under the SC/ST Act. The Court found no specific overt act attributed to the appellant, noted his clean antecedent, and observed that co‑accused had already been granted bail. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court’s order, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC, and ordered the appellant to surrender within thirty days if arrested.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 438 CrPC.
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the appellant's clean antecedent and the general nature of the allegations justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 14(A)(2), 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 34, 341, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(i)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- bail conditions
- clean antecedent
- IPC offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3399 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2024 Thana- SIMULTALLA District- Jamui
======================================================
Kumar Roshan @ Roshan Yadav S/o Kameshwar Yadav R/o Village-
Siyatand, P.S.- Simultala, District- Jamui
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Chandan Kumar Rajak S/o Umakant Rajak R/o Village- Telwa Bazar, P.S.-
Simultala, District- Jamui
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prakash Mahto, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 17-04-2026 Heard Mr. Prakash Mahto, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Binay Krishan, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
Despite valid service of notice none appeared on behalf of the
Respondent No. 2.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated
13.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1 st,
Jamui in A.B.P. No. 540/2024 in connection with Simultala P.S.
Case No. 27/2024 F.I.R. dated 07.03.2024 registered under
Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (i) (s), 3(2) (va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3399 of 2025(4) dt.17-04-2026
2/4
3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant
and the co-accused persons along with 15 unknown persons are
alleged to have abused the informant by calling caste name and
also assaulted him by means of lathi and danda.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has submitted
that although the appellant is named in the F.I.R. but from
perusal of the F.I.R., there is no specific allegation of overt act
against the appellant rather there is general and omnibus
allegation against all the five named and 15 unknown persons
and for the same set of allegation, the co-accused persons,
namely, Vikash Kumar and Chandan Kumar have been granted
bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order
dated 04.12.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 2658 of
2024.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
6. After hearing the parties, in my view for the
purpose of this anticipatory bail, no offence under the provisions
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is made out.
7. Considering that the appellant has clean antecedent,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3399 of 2025(4) dt.17-04-2026
3/4
there is general and omnibus allegation against the appellant and
the fact that the co-accused persons have been granted bail by
the co-ordinate bench of this Hon’ble Court, let the appellant,
above named, in the event of his arrest to surrender before the
Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of earned
Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Jamui in A.B.P. No. 540/2024 in
connection with Simultala P.S. Case No. 27/2024, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-
i. appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3399 of 2025(4) dt.17-04-2026
4/4
any stage it is found that the appellant has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this
appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
atul/-
U T
Checking your session…