Patna High Court
Rahul YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted and set aside the lower court’s order refusing bail.
Summary
The appellants, Rahul Yadav and Sonu Yadav, were charged under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly conspiring to fraudulently obtain a sale deed, trespassing, ransacking property and threatening the informant by invoking her caste. They contended that the FIR was lodged three weeks after the alleged incident without a satisfactory explanation and that the case stemmed from a pre‑existing land dispute, asserting no public use of the informant’s caste name. The Special Public Prosecutor and the informant opposed bail, arguing that the offences under the SC/ST Act were established. The High Court considered the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of any public caste‑based insult, and the appellants’ lack of prior criminal record. Finding that the lower court’s refusal to grant bail was not justified, the Court set aside the order and allowed the appeal. Consequently, the appellants were released on bail upon furnishing the prescribed bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to bail despite charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under the SC/ST Act given no public use of the caste name.
- Whether the three‑week delay in lodging the FIR warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 119, 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 333, 76
- SC/ST Act — s. 3(1)(f), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(1), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste
- fraud
- conspiracy
- criminal trespass
- delay in FIR
- land dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3933 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Rahul Yadav S/O Lal Yadav R/vill- Sapta, P.S- Rahika, Distt- Madhubani,
Bihar.
2. Sonu Yadav S/O Phuldeo Yadav R/vill- Sapta, P.S- Rahika, Distt-
Madhubani, Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ram Sunder Devi W/O Late Vinay Das R/O Village- Sapta, P.S- Rahika,
Dsitt.- Madubani, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Madhuri Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP
For the Informant : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vikramaditya, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the informant.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-1 cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Madhubani
whereby the prayer for bail of the appellants in connection with
GR No. 109 of 2024, Madhubani SC/ST P.S. Case No. 51 of
2024 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 119, 115(2), 76,
333, 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(w)(1), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3933 of 2025(4) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
rejected.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellants,
in conspiracy with other accused persons, taking advantage of
the weak mental condition of the informant’s Scheduled Caste
son, fraudulently got a sale deed executed without payment of
consideration and thereafter abused the informant by taking the
name of her caste, criminally trespassed into her house,
ransacked household articles and threatened her.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel further submitted that there is a
delay of about three weeks in lodging the FIR without any
plausible explanation, which in itself, raises doubt over the
prosecution story. Learned counsel further submitted that the
appellants are being dragged in this case merely due to previous
land dispute. He further contended that title suit is pending
between the parties and the same is annexed as Annexure –P/3
to the present bail application. Learned counsel for the
appellants further submits that the appellants have not taken the
caste name of the informant in public view, hence, no offence
under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against him. The
appellants have no intention to disgrace the image of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3933 of 2025(4) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
informant in public view. The appellants are in custody since
27.08.2025 and have no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellants.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and the period of custody undergone by the
appellants, this Court is inclined to allow this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 27.08.2025
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 cum Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Madhubani in connection with G.R. No. 109
of 2024, Madhubani SC/ST P.S. Case No. 51 of 2024 is hereby
set aside.
7. Let the appellants, abovenamed, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with
GR No. 109 of 2024, Madhubani SC/ST P.S. Case No. 51 of
2024.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…