Patna High Court
SHRAWAN YADAV @ SHRAVAN YADAVversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the trial court’s refusal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants.
Summary
The appellants, Shrawan Yadav and Girja Yadav, were charged under several provisions of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for alleged robbery, assault and caste‑based abuse. The trial court refused anticipatory bail on 11‑Nov‑2024. The appellants appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, arguing that the notice served to the informant’s brother was valid through a jointness application, that they have clean antecedents, and that the allegations are false and stem from a personal dispute. The State opposed the appeal. The Patna High Court held that the trial court’s refusal was unwarranted, set aside the order, and granted anticipatory bail subject to bail bonds and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act was justified in view of the facts.
- Whether a notice served via a jointness application is valid for the purposes of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the allegations against the appellants constitute a ground to deny anticipatory bail under the applicable criminal statutes.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 115(2), 127(1), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2), 74
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(ii)(va), 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(i)(w)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- jointness notice
- Section 14-A
- Section 482
- false implication
- Bihar criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.373 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Gaya
======================================================
1. SHRAWAN YADAV @ SHRAVAN YADAV S/O RAMCHANDRA YADAV
@ DHURI YADAV R/O Village- English, P.S.- Chandauti, District- Gaya
2. GIRJA YADAV @ VIKAS YADAV S/O LATE LALJI YADAV @
LALJEET YADAV R/O Village- English, P.S.- Chandauti, District- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. ASHOK PASWAN S/O MASUDAN PASWAN R/O Village- English, P.S.-
Chandauti, District- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 30-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Special P.P. for the State.
2. 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
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 11.11.2024 in A.B.P. No. 336 of 2024 passed by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.373 of 2025(4) dt.30-04-2026
2/4
learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Gaya in
connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 46 of 2024 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 127(1), 115(2), 303(2),
74, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Sections
3(i)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(i)(w) and 3(ii)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
notice was received by the younger brother of the informant and
in respect of which a jointness application has been filed.
4. Since a jointness application has been filed,
hence the notice is deemed to be validly served.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 08.09.2024 at 07:30 PM while he was going
home when Shrawan, Sakin, Kamlesh and Girija intercepted
him and said to give the money and abused by taking caste
name and snatched Rs. 20,000/-, but informant managed to flee,
further after some time, his brother was coming home when
Shrawan snatched Rs. 700/- and Kamlesh snatched his cycle
while Sakin threatened with pistol and Girija said to assault.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant, on account of dispute relating to bataidari and this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.373 of 2025(4) dt.30-04-2026
3/4
perhaps explains why the informant despite receiving notice
chooses not to appear and contest. It is also submitted that it
does not appear probable that after assaulting and snatching Rs.
20,000/- from the informant, the accused persons would have
been waiting at the place of occurrence for the brother of the
informant, as it is alleged that after informant fled from the
place of occurrence, the accused persons intercepted his brother
who was coming home and snatched Rs. 700/- from him and
also threatened. It is next submitted that even allegation of
abuse is general and omnibus in nature.
7. Learned Special P.P. for the State opposes the
appeal.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the order dated 11.11.2024 in A.B.P.
No. 336 of 2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Gaya in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case
No. 46 of 2024, is hereby set aside and the appellants above-
named, in the event of their arrest or surrender 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 Trial Court where the case is pending/successor
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.373 of 2025(4) dt.30-04-2026
4/4
court in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 46 of 2024
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of
the BNSS.
9. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…