Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ganauri Yadav @ Gendhari Yadav @ Genari YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The High Court set aside the refusal of anticipatory bail and granted it to the appellants subject to a bail bond and sureties.

Summary

The appellants, four Yadavs from Sangrampur, were charged under several provisions of the Bihar Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for alleged assault and caste-based abuse while intoxicated. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge under the SC/ST Act. The appellants contended that the allegations were vague, they were falsely implicated, and the complainant failed to appear despite notice. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Patna High Court, considering the facts and the procedural aspects, set aside the trial court’s order and granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties, invoking Section 482(2) of the CrPC. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to persons accused of offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
  • Whether the trial court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail was justified in view of the nature of the allegations and the non‑appearance of the complainant.
  • Whether the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115, 352, 3(5) of the Bihar Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(i)(s), 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act warrant denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • SC/ST Act
  • scheduled caste atrocities
  • bail under CrPC
  • Section 482
  • Section 14-A
  • offences under Bihar Penal Code
  • non‑appearance of complainant

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3881 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
           1.     Ganauri Yadav @ Gendhari Yadav @ Genari Yadav son of Lakhan Yadav
                  Resident Of Village- Sangrampur Ward no. 11, Post- Sangrampur, Ps-
                  chanan, Dist- Lakhisarai
           2.    Sadhu yadav @ Shubham Yadav @ Shrawan yadav son of Saryug Yadav
                 Resident Of Village- Sangrampur Ward no. 11, Post- Sangrampur, Ps-
                 chanan, Dist- Lakhisarai
           3.    Santosh Kumar son of Mathura Yadav Resident Of Village- Sangrampur
                 Ward no. 11, Post- Sangrampur, Ps- chanan, Dist- Lakhisarai
           4.    Jhaman Yadav @ Shyam sunder Son of Saryug yadav Resident Of Village-
                 Sangrampur Ward no. 11, Post- Sangrampur, Ps- chanan, Dist- Lakhisarai
                                                                         ... ... Appellant/s
                                                  Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.     Kali charan Kumar son of Kaishua Manjhi Resident Of Village- Bhandar,
                  Ward no. 5 Post- Sangrampur, Ps- chanan, Dist- Lakhisarai
                                                                          ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s      :        Mr.Mukesh Kumar
                 For the Respondent/s     :        Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   22-04-2026              1.     Heard learned counsel for the appellants and

                   learned Spl. 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 20-8-2025 in A.B.P. No. 921 of 2025 passed by the

                   learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge

                   S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Lakhisarai in connection with Lakhisarai

                   SC/ST P.S. Case No. 5 of 2025 registered for the offences
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3881 of 2025(3) dt.22-04-2026
                                             2/3




          punishable under Sections 126(2), 115, 352 and 3(5) of the

          BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(i)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of the

          SC/ST Act.

                    3.    Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

          despite receiving notice, the respondent no. 2 chooses not to

          appear and contest.

                    4.    Learned counsel for the appellants next submits

          that appellant nos. 1 and 2 have antecedent of one case and

          appellant nos. 3 and 4 are persons with clean antecedent and the

          informant alleges that on 9-2-2025 at 7 pm the appellants on an

          Auto were returning home in an intoxicated condition and near

          Sewak Asthan, they abused his children and women by taking

          caste name and even assaulted, further on alarm, the informant

          came to the place of occurrence, when appellants assaulted him

          by rod and belt, further also assaulted Surendar, Birbal and Ajay

          by rod and belt, who came to the place of occurrence on hearing

          alarm.

                    5.    Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

          appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the

          allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that

          allegation of abuse and assault is general and omnibus in nature,
              Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3881 of 2025(3) dt.22-04-2026
                                                           3/3




                        when SC/ST Act is a stringent Act. It is also submitted that this

                        perhaps explains why respondent no. 2 despite receiving notice

                        chooses not to appear and contest. It is further submitted that

                        though allegation is that appellants were in an intoxicated

                        condition but then the case has not been instituted under the

                        Excise Act.

                                  6.    Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer

                        for anticipatory bail of the appellants.

                                  7.    Considering the aforesaid facts, let 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

                        court in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the

                        conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

                                  8.    Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and

                        the appeal stands allowed.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.