Patna High Court
Lalo YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The appellate court set aside the trial court’s denial of bail and granted bail to the appellants subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, Lalo and Laltu Yadav, were charged under several IPC offences and sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting a woman who objected to a fence construction on her land. The trial court rejected their bail application, prompting an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act. The appellants contended that the case was fabricated, that the dispute was civil in nature, and that no provisions of the SC/ST Act applied. The High Court examined the submissions and found no merit in the trial court’s refusal to grant bail. Consequently, it set aside the lower court’s order, granted bail to each appellant on a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties, and imposed conditions regarding court attendance and verification of antecedents. The appeal was allowed, and the bail order was issued subject to the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail petition of the accused under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act should be granted despite the serious nature of the alleged offences.
- Whether the alleged acts fall within the ambit of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 376, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- Section 14(A)(2)
- IPC offences
- assault
- criminal procedure
- preliminary hearing
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3779 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Saharsa
======================================================
1. Lalo Yadav S/O Raj Kumar Yadav Resident of Utesara ward No. 05, P.S-
Salkhua and Distt.- Shaharsa.
2. Laltu Yadav S/O Raj Kumar Yadav Resident of Utesara ward No. 05, P.S-
Salkhua and Distt.- Shaharsa.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sumitra Devi W/O Late Sukhdev Hazra Resident of Utesara ward No. 05,
P.S- Salkhua, Distt.- Shaharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the respondent no.2.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the rejection of prayer for bail vide
order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
Saharsha in connection with SC/ST Thana P.S. Case No. 12 of
2024 registered for the offence/s punishable u/ss 341, 323, 376,
504, 506, 34 of the I.P.C and section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of
the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3779 of 2025(4) dt.09-01-2026
2/4
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that the named accused persons, including the
appellants, were attempting to construct a fence over land
claimed by her. It is further alleged that upon her objection,
appellant no. 1 slapped the informant and assaulted her, while
appellant no. 2, allegedly holding a .303 rifle, removed the saree
from the body of the informant. It is also alleged that another
accused, namely Soni Devi, took away the informant’s gold
necklace and that the remaining accused persons spat on her
face.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is
false and concocted case and it was on account of an agreement
entered into between the appellant and the informant that the
construction was being done which was being opposed at
regular time and on account of the same the present case has
been lodged. It has next been submitted that no such incident as
alleged has occurred and moreover, from the perusal of the
F.I.R., it would be evident the same was being done with only
the appellant and other co-accused persons and the informant at
the place of occurrence and as such no Section under SC/ST Act
is applicable in the case. Learned counsel lastly submits that
appellants have clean antecedents and they are in custody since
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3779 of 2025(4) dt.09-01-2026
3/4
25.07.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 as well
as learned Spl. P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the
bail petition of the appellant.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and
facts of the case, the order passed by the learned Trial Court
dated 08.08.2025 passed in SC/ST Thana P.S. Case No. 12 of
2024 is accordingly set aside. Let the appellants above
named be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.10,000/-(ten 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 SC/ST Thana P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024, subject to the
following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors of the appellants shall be
their close relative and the other shall be the local resident.
(ii) The appellants shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
appellants will be liable to be cancelled by the court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3779 of 2025(4) dt.09-01-2026
4/4
concerned.
(iv) If the appellants are found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the appellants and in case at any
stage it is found that the appellants have concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the appellants. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. The criminal appeal is allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.