Patna High Court
PAPPU YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the lower court’s order and allowed the appeal, granting anticipatory bail to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Pappu Yadav, was charged under several provisions of the B.N.S. and the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged assault and other offences, and his application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST, Samastipur. He appealed, contending that he has a clean antecedent and that the allegations against him are vague and omnibus, noting that the alleged incident occurred inside the informant’s house and not in public view. The Special Public Prosecutor and counsel for the informant could not refute these submissions. The Patna High Court, after considering the arguments, set aside the order of the Special Judge and allowed the appeal. Consequently, the court directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the B.N.S. and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the allegations against the appellant are sufficiently specific to justify denial of bail.
- Whether the private nature of the alleged incident influences the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 329(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 76
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act
- B.N.S. offences
- private occurrence
- general allegations
- clean antecedent
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3702 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Samastipur
======================================================
Pappu Yadav, Son Of Bharat Yadav @ Suresh Yadav Resident Of Village -
Lalpur, P.S.- Rosera, District - Samastipur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ram Chandra Ram Son of Late Anup Ram Resident of village -
Mohammadpur, P.S.- Rosera, District - Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sheo Kumar Prasad
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1
Mr.Upendra Yadav
Mr.Manoj Kumar Gupta
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
7 01-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The appellant has challenged the order dated
25.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST,
Samastipur in connection with ABP No.1753 of 2025 arising out
of Samastipur SC/ST P. S. Case No.25 of 2025, instituted for the
offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 76, 303(2),
329(3), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(r)(s)
(w), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby his prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail has been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3702 of 2025(7) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean
antecedent and from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that specific allegation of assaulting the
injured is against Ghanshyam Pandit by an iron rod causing
injury on head and the said injury has been opined to be
grievous in nature. It is further submitted that as far as appellant
is concerned the allegation against him of abuse and assault is
general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that entire
occurrence took place at the house of the informant thus was not
in public view.
4. The learned Special P. P. as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
appeal, but then are not in a position to rebut the submission of
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the
entire occurrence took place at the house of the informant and
allegation of abuse and assault against the appellant is general
and omnibus in nature.
5. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 25.07.2025 is set-aside.
6. The appeal stands allowed.
7. The appellant, above-named, in the event of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3702 of 2025(7) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Samastipur in
connection with ABP No.1753 of 2025 arising out of Samastipur
SC/ST P. S. Case No.25 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.