Patna High Court
Nandkeshwar Yadav @ Bijli Yadav @ Nandkishore YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants subject to conditions under Sections 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act.
Summary
The appellants, four residents of Suraundha village, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, 2023 for allegedly assaulting and abusing an informant on a motorcycle. The informant claimed the accused caught his collar, used caste slurs, and that one of them struck his friend Raju with the butt of a pistol, causing an eye injury, though no injury report was on record. The appellants contended that the allegations were vague, general and omnibus, that they were falsely implicated, and that there was insufficient evidence of assault. They sought anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which had been denied by the Special Judge. The Patna High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the lack of concrete evidence and the general nature of the allegations warranted the grant of anticipatory bail, subject to standard conditions, and set aside the lower court’s order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellants were released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act when the allegations are general and lack specific evidence.
- Whether the allegations of caste‑based abuse and assault constitute a cognizable offence sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the absence of an injury report undermines the prosecution’s case for denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based harassment
- general and omnibus allegation
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3974 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-493 Year-2024 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Nandkeshwar Yadav @ Bijli Yadav @ Nandkishore Yadav S/o Late Bhola
Yadav R/o Village - Suraundha, P.S - Barachatti, District - Gaya
2. Murari Yadav @ Murari Kumar S/o Ram Awtar Yadav R/o Village -
Suraundha, P.S - Barachatti, District - Gaya
3. Shyam Sundar Kumar @ Shyam Sundar Yadav S/o Bhuneshwar Yadav R/o
Village - Suraundha, P.S - Barachatti, District - Gaya
4. Vikash Kumar S/o Yugesh Yadav R/o Village - Suraundha, P.S - Barachatti,
District - Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sujit Paswan S/o Shivan Paswan R/o Village - Suraundha, P.S - Barachatti,
District - Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 05-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, 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 04.08.2025 in A.B.P. No. 191 of 2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in connection
with Barachatti P.S. Case No. 493 of 2024 registered under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3974 of 2025(4) dt.05-05-2026
2/4
Sections 126(2), 115, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as
well as Sections 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellant no. 1 has antecedent of two
cases, appellants no. 2 and 3 have antecedent of one case and
appellant no. 4 is a person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that he along with Raju on 04.11.2024, at
about 07:00 p.m., was coming back home on a motorcycle when
they were intercepted by six named accused persons including
the appellants and Shambhu, Raju, Nand Kishore and Murari
caught his collar and abused by taking caste name. Further,
when the informant’s friend, namely, Raju tried to pacify the
issue, Shambhu abused him and assaulted by butt of pistol
causing injury on his right eye. Further, villagers came and
saved them and brought them back to their home. It is next
alleged that accused persons were pressurizing to compromise
Barachatti P.S. Case No. 416 of of 2024 instituted by the
informant against them. Further, Yogendra had made a video
viral using foul language against the informant and Raju.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3974 of 2025(4) dt.05-05-2026
3/4
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
allegation of abuse is general and omnibus in nature. It is next
submitted that it does not appear probable that all six accused in
one go would have abused the informant by taking caste name.
It is also submitted that as far as allegation of assault is alleged,
the informant does not allege that accused persons assaulted him
rather alleges that when his friend Raju tried to pacify the issue
when Shambhu assaulted him by butt of pistol causing injury
over his right eye but then it is submitted that no injury report is
on record. It is submitted that informant earlier had implicated
some of the appellants in Barachatti P.S. Case No. 416 of 2024
and taking the same as an opportunity implicated the appellants
in the instant case with general and omnibus allegation.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants but then are not
in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that appellants did not
assault the informant and allegation of abuse is general and
omnibus in nature when the SC/ST Act is a stringent Act.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, let the appellants,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3974 of 2025(4) dt.05-05-2026
4/4
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, 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 in connection with the aforesaid
case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…