Patna High Court
Rajesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The High Court quashed the order of the Special Judge and directed bail, holding that the alleged caste abuse was not proved and the matter was essentially a civil land dispute.
Summary
The appellants Rajesh Yadav, Arvbind Yadav and Md. Sadam were charged under several IPC provisions and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting and abusing the complainant, who claimed SC/ST status, in a land‑dispute context. The appellants contended that the allegations were unsubstantiated, lacked an affidavit, and that any alleged caste abuse did not occur in public view. They appealed the order dated 30‑07‑2025 of the ADJ‑1 cum Special Judge (SC/ST) which had granted bail, invoking Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The Patna High Court held that the complaint was essentially a civil land dispute, the caste‑abuse allegation was not proved, and therefore the lower court's order was unsustainable. The court set aside the impugned order, directed the appellants to be released on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the factual allegations of caste‑based assault and abuse are sufficiently proved to sustain proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the circumstances of the case.
- Whether the order of the ADJ‑1 cum Special Judge granting bail is liable to be quashed.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354(B), 379, 447, 452, 504/34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(2), 14A(3)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- caste atrocity
- bail
- criminal appeal
- land dispute
- assault
- IPC
- Section 438
- scheduled castes
- scheduled tribes
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3828 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2023 Thana- KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE
District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Rajesh Yadav Son of Dorika Yadav Resident of Village- Sonihar, Ps- Alauli,
Dist- Khagaria
2. Arvbind Yadav Son of Brahmdev yadav Resident of Village- Sonihar, Ps-
Alauli, Dist- Khagaria
3. Md. Sadam @ Shadab Bashar son of Md. Saheb Raja Resident of Village-
Sonihar, Ps- Alauli, Dist- Khagaria
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bhuvneshwar Sada son of not known Resident of Village- Sonihar, Ps-
Alauli, Dist- Khagaria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Indrajit Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under
Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the order
dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned ADJ 1 cum Special Judge
(SC/ST), Khagaria, in Special A.B.A. No. 66/2025 in connection
with Complaint Case No. 25(c)/2023 registered under Sections
447, 452, 341, 323, 354(B), 379 and 504/34 of the IPC and
Sections 3(i)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act and Section 4/6 of the Dain Act.
3. Present appeal is well within limitation as prescribed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3828 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
under Section 14A(3) of the Act.
4. Despite service of notice to respondent no. 2,
informant failed to join the present Court proceedings.
5. As per complaint appellants assaulted complainant and
also to abuse in caste name. Complainant claimed himself to be
member of SC/ST community.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that present occurrence took place in the background of
land dispute. It is submitted that appellants lodged a case
regarding land dispute bearing Case No. 09/21-22, which was
decided in their favour against which appeal preferred by the
informant before Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed
and therefore, out of aforesaid frustration of loosing legal battle
the informant lodged the present complaint case, allegation of
which cannot be relied upon for the reason as same also not
appears supported with any affidavit in view of Priyanka
Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others as reported in [(2015) 6 SCC 287]. It is also submitted
that allegation qua abusing caste name in public view not appears
available. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon
the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, [(2020) 10 SCC
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3828 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
710].
7. Learned Special P.P. opposed the prayer of bail.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, as mentioned
above and by taking note of fact as primarily dispute between the
parties appears civil in nature and abusing in caste name also not
appears to be made in public view, accordingly, above-named
appellant in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks of the order, is
directed to be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of the learned ADJ-1 cum Special Judge
(SC/ST), Khagaria/concerned Court, where the case is pending in
connection with Special A.B.A. No. 66/2025 in connection with
Complaint Case No. 25(c)/2023, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 30.07.2025 is
hereby set aside/quashed.
10. Hence, appeal stands allowed.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…