Patna High Court
Sudama YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that the allegations stemmed from a land dispute, not caste animus, and consequently set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail, granting anticipatory bail to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants Sudama, Krishna and Dhirendra Yadav appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a refusal of anticipatory bail. The informant alleged that the accused assaulted him and his brother over a land dispute, with claims of caste‑based abuse. The appellants contended that the case arose solely from a land dispute, that the abuse allegation was vague, and that they were falsely implicated. The State could not rebut the claim that the incident was not motivated by the informant’s Scheduled Caste status. The High Court set aside the lower court’s order refusing bail and granted anticipatory bail to appellants 2 and 3, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, thereby allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is justified in the present facts.
- Whether the alleged offences are motivated by caste animus or by a land‑dispute, affecting the applicability of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in this case.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act (BNSS) — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2), 74
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- Section 14-A
- land dispute
- caste violence
- criminal assault
- Section 482
- BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3560 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2025 Thana- MAIGRA District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Sudama Yadav S/o- Krishna Yadav Village- Maigra PS- Maigra, Dist- Gaya
2. Krishna Yadav S/o- Balgivind Yadav Village- Maigra PS- Maigra, Dist-
Gaya
3. Dhirendra Yadav S/o- Krishna Yadav Village- Maigra PS- Maigra, Dist-
Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sonu Kumar S/o- Dashrath Bhuiyan Village- Plus PS- Maigra, Dist- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Md. Javed Jafar Khan, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 06-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Binay
Krishna learned Spl. PP. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, after some arguments, seeks permission to withdraw
the appeal with respect to appellant no.1, namely, Sudama
Yadav.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3560 of 2025(4) dt.06-01-2026
2/4
Act") against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 01.08.2025 in A.B.P. No. 187 of 2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T, Gaya, in connection
with Maigra P.S. Case No. 36 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 109, 352, 351(2),
3(5) of the B.N.S. AND Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (v-a) of
the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants nos. 2 and 3 are persons with clean antecedent and
the informant alleges that on 19.05.2025 at about 8:00 P.M., he
had gone to his agricultural field where he saw the named
accused persons including the appellant watering his field
accordingly the informant and his brother objected the same, it
is further alleged that the named accused person including the
appellants assaulted the informant by rod on his head causing
injury, thereafter, Krishna Yadav (appellant no. 2) assaulted the
brother of the informant by axe causing injury on head. It is next
alleged that when informant and his brother tried to escape from
the place of occurrence, accused Sudama Yadav (appellant no.
1) assaulted with knife causing injury to his brother while Chotu
Yadav and Rambali Yadav assaulted Suraj Paswan and Krishna
Yadav (appellant no. 2) along with Dharmendra Yadav outraged
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3560 of 2025(4) dt.06-01-2026
3/4
the modesty of women of the family member, further 8-10
unknown miscreants came from the side of the appellants and
started assaulting the informant and his side by fist and lathi.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR it would manifest that on
account of dispute relating to land the alleged occurrence is
alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted that on account
of dispute an altercation took place in which both side assaulted
each other. It is also submitted that as far as allegation of abuse
is alleged the same is general and omnibus in nature and it does
not appear probable that all the accused person in one go would
have started abusing the side of the informant. It is further
submitted that even injuries suffered by the injured has been
opined to be simple in nature. It is reiterated and submitted that
occurrence took place on account of land dispute and not for the
reason that informant belongs to SC category.
7. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State and learned counsel
for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
appellant but then are not in a position to rebut the submission
of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3560 of 2025(4) dt.06-01-2026
4/4
the occurrence took place on account of land dispute and
allegation of abuse is general and omnibus in nature.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the order dated 01.08.2025 in A.B.P.
No. 187 of 2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge
S.C./S.T, Gaya, in connection with Maigra P.S. Case No. 36 of
2025 is hereby set aside and the appellants no. 2 and 3 above-
named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Maigra P.S. Case No. 36 of 2025 subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
9. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…