Patna High Court
Sunil YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside and bail is granted subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants Sunil Yadav and Nagina Yadav appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case under the SC/ST Act where the informant alleged caste‑based assault and lathi‑chase stemming from a land dispute. The appellants contended they have clean antecedents, the FIR was filed three days after the alleged incident, and no independent witnesses were recorded, suggesting false implication. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of offences listed under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST Act. The High Court examined the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of corroborative evidence, finding insufficient ground to deny bail. It granted anticipatory bail subject to bond and surety conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, set aside the lower court’s order, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in offences punishable under the SC/ST Act and BNSS.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and absence of independent witnesses justify denial of bail.
- Whether the allegations constitute false implication warranting denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 110, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- land dispute
- false implication
- Section 482
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3950 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2024 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Sunil Yadav S/o Kapil Yadav @ Kapil Prasad R/o Vill- Chandachak, PS-
Neemchak Bathani, Dist- Gaya
2. Nagina Yadav S/o Kapil Yadav @ Kapil Prasad R/o Vill- Chandachak, PS-
Neemchak Bathani, Dist- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Punam Kumari W/o Bhushan Paswan R/o vill - Chandachak, P.S.-
Neemchak Bathani, Distt.- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shivendra Prasad
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1, Spl. PP
Mr. Hira Sharma, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 29-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Spl.
P.P. for the State 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 11-8-2025 in
A.B.P. No. 197 of 2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special
Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Gaya in connection with Neemchak
Bathani P.S. Case No. 216 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 110, 303(2), 352, 351(2),
351(3) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3950 of 2025(5) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that she was working in her field on 7-10-2025 at 9 am, when
accused persons came and Sunil abused by taking caste name and
assaulted her by lathi on shoulder, while Nagina and Lala assaulted
Poonam by lathi on back and shoulder, further Ashok also assaulted
them by lathi, while Lala and Sikandar snatched chain of Poonam
and Abila and also abused, further the reason for the occurrence is
that the accused persons cut the ridge of her land and amalgamated
the same with their land, on objection the occurrence took place.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
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 on account of dispute
relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is
also submitted that for the side of the appellants Neemchak Bathani
PS Case No. 212 of 2024 dated 7-10-2024 was instituted against the
informant and her side as such the instant FIR by way of counter-
blast was instituted on 10-10-2024, i.e., after a delay of three days
without any plausible explanation. It is thus submitted that had any
occurrence of the nature as alleged taken place on 7-10-2024 in that
event the FIR would not have been instituted after a delay of three
days. It is next submitted that since an FIR came to be instituted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3950 of 2025(5) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
from the side of the appellants as such the instant FIR was instituted
with a view to coerce the appellants into submission. It is also
submitted that occurrence is not alleged to have been witnessed by
any independent witnesses.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the appellants.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the
appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…