Patna High Court
Sandeep Yadav @ Sandeep Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the lower court’s order and allowed anticipatory bail to the appellant, subject to bail conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Sandeep Yadav, was charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, IPC and IT Act for alleged rape, robbery and related offences, based on the victim's claim that she was assaulted, filmed and threatened. The appellant contended he had a clean record, that the allegations were false, and that no material evidence linked him to the alleged video, noting that a co‑accused, Tuntun Yadav, had been acquitted by a trial court. The investigating officer corroborated the lack of any evidence that the video went viral. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the lower court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail. The Patna High Court set aside the refusal, granting anticipatory bail with a bond and sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, and warned that the bail could be cancelled if the appellant attempted to delay the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in view of the allegations of rape and related offences.
- Whether the acquittal of a co‑accused and the absence of material evidence regarding the alleged video justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 376(D), 379
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(D), 67
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(i)(wi)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- rape
- false implication
- video evidence
- acquittal
- Section 14-A
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.379 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- Supaul
======================================================
Sandeep Yadav @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav Son of Tapeshwari Yadav Resident
of Village- Bairiya Ward No. 2, P.S.- Pipra, Distt.- Supaul
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranjan Devi Wife of Shri Jeewachh Sharma Resident of Ward No. 9 Keshav
Nagar, P.S.- Pipra, Distt.- Supaul
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Special P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. P.K. Thakur, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 02-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Special P.P. Mr. Binay Krishna and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
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 09.12.2024 in A.B.A. No. 1260/2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Supaul in connection with Supaul (Mahila) P.S. Case
No.13/2024, registered under Sections 376(D), 379, 323, 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, Section 66 (D) and 67 of I.T. Act and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.379 of 2025(5) dt.02-02-2026
2/5
Sections 3(i)(wi), 3(2) (va) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. The SHO-cum-I.O. of the case, in compliance of
the order dated 28.01.2026, is present in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 05.02.2024 at 8 P.M. she was going to her
matrimonial home, when she was intercepted by the accused
persons including the appellant along with four unknown
accused, further Sandeep tied her mouth by a towel and Tuntun
on point of pistol took her to a desolated place and all the
accused raped her in turn, further Tuntun took Rs.30,000/- from
her purse while Sandeep took her ear-ring worth Rs.40,000/-
and while leaving the accused persons threatened that if
occurrence is disclosed the video would be made viral, further
she somehow managed to reach her matrimonial home, but did
not disclose about the occurrence fearing that video would be
made viral, next alleges that about 4-5 days back, Kanchan and
Sarita came and showed her the video footage and said that
whenever accused persons asked her to satisfy them she will
have to oblige, further the video was made viral, thereafter her
family members assaulted her.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.379 of 2025(5) dt.02-02-2026
3/5
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that allegation is of committing
rape by all the accused persons including the appellant and the
occurrence is alleged to have been video-graphed. It is next
submitted that during the course of investigation, no material
transpired which could even remotely connect the allegation of
making the video viral true. It is further submitted that the date
of occurrence is 05.02.2024 and the FIR came to be instituted
on 05.03.2024 and the victim even refused her medical
examination. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted
that co-accused Tuntun Yadav was acquitted in the trial by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge
SC/ST (POA) Act, Supaul by a Judgment dated 23.09.2025 in
Case No. SC/ST 62/2024/CIS No. Spl Case-29/2024. It is next
submitted that no useful purpose would be served by sending
the appellant to jail when Tuntun has been acquitted in a duly
constituted trial. It is also submitted that issue of video going
viral was also considered by the learned trial court. It is next
submitted that the learned trial court while acquitting Tuntun
took this fact into consideration that the genuineness of the
video was not proved and the victim refused from her medical
examination.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.379 of 2025(5) dt.02-02-2026
4/5
6. The Investigating Officer of the case, who is
present in the Court, at this stage, submits that though in the FIR
it is alleged that the video was made viral but then during the
course of investigation, no material could be collected which
could even remotely suggested that the video went viral and the
victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also
did not state the said fact that video went viral.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Binay
Krishna and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
appellant but then are not in a position to rebut the submission
of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that
similarly situated co-accused Tuntun Yadav has been acquitted
by the learned trial court in a duly constituted trial. At this stage,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits
that appellant will not abscond rather will face the trial to prove
his innocence.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
order impugned is set aside. Let the appellant, above named, in
the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court
below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.379 of 2025(5) dt.02-02-2026
5/5
bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court
below where the case is pending in connection with the
aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
10. It is made clear that if the learned trial court
comes to a conclusion that appellant after his release is trying to
delay the framing of charge or after framing of charge is trying
to delay the trial, in both the conditions, the learned trial court
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the appellant.
11. The personal appearance of the SHO-cum-I.O. is
dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…