Patna High Court
Naresh Kumar Gope @ Naresh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing the appellant to surrender because cognizance had been taken and Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
Summary
The appellant, Naresh Kumar Gope, was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly taking a government‑installed solar light from the complainant’s house, abusing her and assaulting her son. He sought anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the Act after the trial court refused it. The appellant argued that the allegations were vague, that he could not have installed the solar light without authority permission, and that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution contended that a charge‑sheet had been filed, cognizance was taken, and therefore Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which bars anticipatory bail after cognizance, applied. The Patna High Court, while inclined to grant bail, held that because cognizance had been taken, anticipatory bail could not be granted and ordered the appellant to surrender before the trial court on 31‑03‑2026 for disposal of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act can be granted after a charge‑sheet has been filed and cognizance taken.
- Whether the allegations against the appellant are sufficiently specific to warrant denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 18, 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 18
- cognizance
- false implication
- solar light dispute
- assault
- abuse
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3860 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Siwan
======================================================
Naresh Kumar Gope @ Naresh Yadav S/o Lutawan Gope @ Lutawan Yadav
R/o Village- Mirhata, P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kalawati Devi W/o Shankar Ram R/o Village- Mirhata, P.S.- Bhagwanpur
Hat, District- Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 17-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and 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 18.08.2025 in A.B.P. No. 1824 of 2025 passed by
the learned 1st District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Siwan in connection with Siwan SC/ST P.S. Case
No. 42 of 2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352,
351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3860 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
2/4
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant has antecedent of one case and
the informant alleges that on 04.05.2025 solar light was
installed in front of her house by the Government but the
accused persons including the appellant on 04.05.2025, at 07:00
p.m., came and took away the solar plate, battery and the light
and got the same installed in front of their house and on
objection, the accused persons abused. Further, on 07.05.2025
accused person came to her house and abused saying why case
has been instituted and assaulted her son, namely, Nitesh by fist.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that accused persons including the appellant
took the solar plate, battery and light from the place of
occurrence and got the same installed at a place near their
house. It is next submitted that it is not possible for the appellant
to install solar light at a place near his house without the
permission of the authority. It is also submitted that as far as
allegation of abuse and assault is alleged, the same is general
and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that it does not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3860 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
3/4
appear probable that all the accused in one go would have
abused the informant and as far as allegation of assault is
alleged, the allegation is general and omnibus in nature. It is
next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is
true without admitting then the occurrence is alleged to have
taken place at the house of the informant, as such, was not in
public view.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellant.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant is not in a position to rebut the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that
allegation of abuse and assault is general and omnibus in nature
but then it is submitted that charge-sheet was submitted on
27.10.2025 on which learned Special Public Prosecutor submits
that since charge-sheet has been submitted, cognizance must
have been taken and since the cognizance has been taken, as
such, rigors of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act shall come into play.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court was inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail
to the appellant but for the reason that charge-sheet has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3860 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
4/4
submitted and cognizance has been taken, as such, the appeal is
disposed of with a direction to the appellant to surrender before
the learned Trial Court on 31.03.2026 and if the appellant
surrenders on 31.03.2026 before the learned Trial Court in that
event the learned Trial Court shall consider and dispose of the
case of the appellant on the same day.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…