Patna High Court
RANA YADAV @ RANA PRATAP SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable where cognizance under the SC/ST Act has already been taken.
Summary
The appellant, Rana Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after being charged under Sections 341, 323, 384, 504, 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The Special Judge had already taken cognizance of the case on 21.02.2017. The State opposed the bail, arguing that anticipatory bail was not maintainable once cognizance had been taken, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar. The Patna High Court examined the precedent and held that the appellant could not obtain anticipatory bail under these circumstances. Consequently, the appeal for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when cognizance under the SC/ST Act has already been taken against the accused
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 384, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- maintainability
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3442 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2016 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Purnia
======================================================
Rana Yadav @ Rana Pratap Singh S/O Late Jay Prakash Singh @ Prakash
Yadav R/O Village- Gharari, P.S- Mirganj(Purnea), Residing At Shastrinagar,
Madhubani, P.S And Distt.- Purnea.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bateshwar Soren S/O Late Jaggu Soren R/O Village- Pahadtol Pakadia, P.S-
Mirganj, Distt.- Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. Public Prosecutor
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant and Spl. Public Prosecutor.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
30.06.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnia
in ABP No. 61 of 2023 arising out of Mirganj P. S. Case No. 76
of 2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 384, 504, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 of the SC/ST Act, whereby
the prayer for anticipatory bail of appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the
State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted
that the instant anticipatory bail is not maintainable as from
perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that cognizance
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3442 of 2023(4) dt.19-03-2026
2/2
under SC/ST Act has already been taken against appellant on
21.02.2017 by learned Court below and in this connection, he
refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in
case of Bachu Das Vs State of Bihar and others, reported in
Cr. Appeal No. 314 of 2014.
4. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme court in case of Bachu Das (supra), instant appeal filed
for pre-arrest bail to the appellant, is dismissed as being not
maintainable.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…