Patna High Court
BIBHASH KUMAR @ BIBHASH YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The High Court upheld the lower court’s order denying anticipatory bail, holding that the seriousness of the alleged assault and destruction of Panchayat documents justified refusal of bail.
Summary
The appellant, Bibhash Kumar, was charged under several IPC provisions and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly entering the informant's room, verbally abusing him on caste grounds, assaulting him, and destroying Panchayat office documents. He sought anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and political victimisation, and asserted a clean antecedent. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the damage to public records. The Patna High Court examined whether the facts justified granting anticipatory bail and whether the conduct fell within the ambit of the SC/ST Act. Finding the accusations serious and the alleged destruction of official documents indicative of a non‑bailable offence, the Court upheld the lower court’s denial of bail. Consequently, the appeal for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant in view of the alleged assault and document destruction.
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the nature and seriousness of the allegations warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 427, 448, 504, 506/34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- assault
- damage to public documents
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3598 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2023 Thana- SC/ST District- Munger
======================================================
Bibhash Kumar @ Bibhash Yadav S/O Bhuneshwar Prasad Yadav R/O
Village- Bari Majhgain, P.S- Gangta, Distt.- Munger.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gaurav Kumar S/O Sri Babulal Rajak R/O Village- Nathnagar Guldar Patti,
P.S- Lalmatia, Distt.- Bhagalpur At Present Panchayat Rojgar Sevak At
Gram Panchayat Majhgain (Informant)
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. Public Prosecutor
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 19-03-2026 Despite valid service of notice, none appears on
behalf of the respondent no. 2.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant and Spl. Public Prosecutor.
3. This criminal appeal has been filed against the
order dated 06.07.2023 passed by learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge 1st, Munger in ABP No. 820 of 2023 arising out
of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 17 of 2023, registered under Sections
341, 323, 448, 427, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the
prayer for anticipatory bail of appellant has been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3598 of 2023(4) dt.19-03-2026
2/2
4. It is alleged that this appellant, who is Bhaisur of
Mukhiya, entered the room of informant, abused him by caste
name and assaulted with fists and slaps. It is further alleged that
in course of assault, the accused persons tore the documents
relating to Panchayat Office and took away some register and
documents.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. Appellant
has falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics. It
is not the case of informant that alleged incident occurred within
public view, as such no case under SC/ST Act is made out
against the appellant. Appellant claims clean antecedent.
5. However, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor appearing
for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the nature of accusation and the fact
that appellant and others damaged the documents of the
Panchayat Office, 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…