Patna High Court
Laloo Yadav @ Lalu Yadav @ Jay Krishna KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the incident was a free fight not amounting to an atrocity under the SC/ST Act, and therefore set aside the lower court’s order and granted bail to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, a group of Yadavs and others, appealed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to set aside a district court order that had refused them bail in a case arising from a land‑dispute‑related clash. The FIR alleged assault, grievous injuries and offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, the SC/ST Act and the Arms Act, but the complainant’s claim of scheduled‑caste status was not supported by any allegation of caste‑based insult. The appellants argued that the incident was a free fight over land, not an atrocity contemplated by the SC/ST Act. The High Court accepted this view, noting the absence of any caste‑based abuse in the FIR and that both sides suffered injuries, and therefore held that the matter did not fall within the ambit of the Act. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, granted bail to the appellants subject to conditions, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the incident constitutes an offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- Whether the FIR properly alleged caste‑based abuse required to invoke the SC/ST Act
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused in view of the nature of the incident
- Whether the lower court’s order denying bail should be set aside
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(2), 14A(3), 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dh)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- atrocity
- caste discrimination
- land dispute
- free fight
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3718 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2025 Thana- FALKA District- Katihar
======================================================
1. Laloo Yadav @ Lalu Yadav @ Jay Krishna Kumar S/o Sitaram Yadav
2. Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Yadav S/o Sitaram Yadav
3. Sitaram Yadav S/o Saryug Yadav
4. Jagdish Yadav S/o Saryug Yadav
5. Sanjay Yadav S/o Saryug Yadav
6. Bambam Yadav @ Bumbum Yadav S/o Jagdish Yadav
7. Pintu Yadav @ Pintu Kumar Yadav S/o Jagdish Yadav
8. Jyoti Mandal @ Jyotish Kumar S/o Bhuto Mandal @ Sikander Mandal
9. Kaila Mandal @ Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep S/o Bhuto Mandal @ Sikander
Mandal
10. Sadai Kumar Choudhary @ Sadai Choudhary, S/o Late Nityanand
Chaudhary
11. Sanichar Choudhari @ Srinandan Choudhary S/o Late Nityanand Chaudhary
Both appellants no. 10 and 11 are resident of Vill. and Post-Baretha, P.S.-
Falka, Distt.- Katihar
12. Bhuto Mandal @ Sikander Mandal S/o Prayag Mandal
All Sl. Nos. 1 to 9 and 12 are resident of Vill.-Rahata, P.O.- Pirmokam, P.S.-
Falka, Distt.- Katihar
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bina Devi, Wife of Phulchand Paswan, Resident of village-Hasli, Pirmokam,
Ward No. 12, Police Station- Falka, District- Katihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Srinandan Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate
Mr. Kumar Sameer, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 23-02-2026 Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3718 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
2/6
2. All above-named appellants have preferred the
present appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short
‘the Act’) for setting aside the impugned order dated
07.08.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge-
1-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Katihar in connection with Falka
P.S. Case No.78 of 2025.
3. Present appeal is well within limitation as
prescribed under Section 14A(3) of the Act.
4. Accused/appellants are named in the FIR and
apprehending their arrest in connection with Falka P.S. Case
No.78 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109,
352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘B.N.S.’) as
well as Sections 3(1)(dh) and 3(1)(d) of the Act and Section 27
of the Arms Act.
5. As per FIR, the appellants alleged to assault the
informant and others during occurrence causing head and bodily
injuries, with intention to cause their death, where occurrence
alleged to arising out of land dispute. The informant claimed to
be a member of scheduled castes community.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3718 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
3/6
6. It is submitted by Mr. Srinandan Prasad Sinha,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the
occurrence is free fight in nature arising out of land dispute,
which has been purchased by appellants side. It is submitted
that during occurrence both parties have received injuries, in
fact, the appellants side received grievous injuries, who were in
peaceful possession of land in issue and it was an attempt to
dispossess the appellants. In this connection, it is submitted that
the land in issue was purchased from Sadai Kumar Choudhary,
who also made accused in this case. It is pointed out that the
appellant no.10 already filed a criminal case against informant
when they made an attempt to dispossess him in the month of
April, 2025 for which Falka P.S. Case No.40 of 2025 was lodged
on 06.04.2025.
7. Explaining the issue, it is further submitted by Mr.
Sinha that the informant claimed over the land on the basis of
Laal card/parcha issued by Collector. It is submitted that the
card was issued, considering the informant as homeless person
but, subsequently, that card/parcha was reejcted by the
Collector, Katihar through its order dated 04,07.2014 as passed
in Katihar Miscellaneous Case No.579 of 2010-11. It is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3718 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
4/6
submitted that aforesaid cancellation order of Katihar was
challenged before the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna through B.L.T.
Case No.317 of 2015 by informant’s side, which was also
dismissed on 18th December, 2015 through a reasoned order,
which is Annexure-3 of the present petition.
8. Arguing further, it is pointed out that appellant
no.10 sold his land to rest of the appellants whereafter, the
appellants came over the possession of the land in issue.
9. It is submitted that the allegation qua abusing in
caste name is not convincing, as same not appears to be made
in public view and moreover the occurrence is also not appears
arising out of atrocities as defined within the meaning of Act.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if insult is not
caused to complainant/informant on the basis of caste, no case
is made out under the Act, as it was held in State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Parasram @ Purushottam [2015 (153) AIC
276]. It is pointed out that in FIR, there is no whisper about
any abuse in caste name and presuming that informant belongs
to scheduled castes community, the present FIR was lodged
under SC/ST Act. It is submitted that the allegation is not
appearing convincing in view of aforesaid factual submissions
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3718 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
5/6
and in support of same, learned counsel has relied upon legal
reports of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Hitesh
Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. [(2020) 10
SCC 710] and Gulam Mustafa vs State of Karnataka and
Anr. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 603].
10. Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Special Public
Prosecutor while opposing the prayer for bail could not dispute
the fact that the occurrence is free fight in nature and further,
the aforesaid factual submissions also, which was raised in
support of land dispute.
11. The information regarding present proceeding
was given to the informant through learned Spl.P.P. but, despite
of same, the informant failed to join the present proceeding.
12. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submissions
and by taking note of fact, as occurrence is free fight in nature,
where both parties have received injuries, coupled with the fact
that FIR not even suggest any whispering of abuse by caste
name, accordingly, all appellants, above-named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period
of four weeks from today, are directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3718 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
6/6
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge-1-cum-
Special Judge, SC/ST, Katihar in connection with Falka P.S.
Case No.78 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’).
13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
07.08.2025 as passed by learned District and Sessions Judge-
1-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Katihar is set aside.
14. The appeal stands allowed.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.