Patna High Court
RAM SUNDAR YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that the nature of the accusations warranted denial of anticipatory bail and refused to interfere with the lower court’s order.
Summary
The appellants, Ram Sundar Yadav, Bhikhari Yadav and Bablu Yadav, appealed against the order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge‑cum‑Special Judge (SC/ST Act) that rejected their application for anticipatory bail. The FIR alleged that they, along with others, assaulted an informant and his family, abused them using caste slurs, and set the informant's house on fire, invoking IPC sections 341, 323, 308, 379, 435/34 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated due to an ongoing land dispute and asserted a clean antecedent. The respondent opposed bail, emphasizing the specific accusations of caste‑based abuse, assault and arson. The High Court, after considering the seriousness of the allegations, found no ground to interfere with the lower court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, thereby denying anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the appellants in light of the serious allegations under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
- Do the allegations constitute specific overt acts sufficient to justify denial of bail?
- Whether the alleged land dispute and claim of false implication affect the bail consideration?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 34, 341, 379, 435
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- assault
- arson
- land dispute
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3548 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2022 Thana- SAKRI District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Ram Sundar Yadav Son of Late Narayan Yadav R/V- Meghaul, P.S- Pandaul,
Dist- Madhubani
2. Bhikhari Yadav Son of Late Sridev Yadav R/V- Meghaul, P.S- Pandaul, Dist-
Madhubani
3. Bablu Yadav Son of Ram Sundar Yadav R/V- Meghaul, P.S- Pandaul, Dist-
Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bhola Sadai Son of Baudhan Sadai R/V- Minhai, P.S- Sakri, Dist-
Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Md. Imtiyaz Ahmad, Mr. Mudit Meet, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. Public Prosecutor
For the R.No. 2 : Mr. Bimal Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, respondent
no. 2 and the State.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
08.08.2022 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Madhubani in Sakri P.S.
Case No. 99 of 2022 registered under Sections 341, 323, 308,
379, 435/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of
appellants has been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3548 of 2022(6) dt.09-04-2026
2/2
3. As per F.I.R., all the named accused persons,
including these appellants, assaulted informant and his family
member, abused informant by caste name. It is further alleged
that the accused persons also set the house of informant on fire.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are innocent and have committed no offence.
Appellants have falsely been implicated in this case due to
admitted land dispute. Allegation of abuse and assault is general
and omnibus and there is no allegation of any specific overt act
against the appellants. Appellants claim clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that there is specific
accusation that these appellants along with others abused
informant and his family members by caste name, assaulted
them and set the house on fire.
6. Considering the nature of accusation, I do not find
any ground to interfere with the order of the learned court below
and as such, the appeal, which has been filed for grant of
anticipatory bail, is hereby rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.