Patna High Court
Deena Yadav @ Deena PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court partially set aside the lower court’s order, denying anticipatory bail to Indradev Yadav while granting it to Deena Yadav and Subodh Kumar subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the trial court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a case alleging caste‑based assault and other offences. The informant claimed the appellants assaulted him and his family while he was crossing a field, citing injuries and caste abuse. The appellants argued they were falsely implicated due to a land dispute and that the allegations against two of them were ornamental, with no injury report. The Special Public Prosecutor contended that another related case demonstrated the occurrence of the offence. The High Court rejected anticipatory bail for Indradev Yadav (appellant 2) but granted it to Deena Yadav and Subodh Kumar (appellants 1 and 3) on condition of bail bonds and sureties, partially setting aside the lower court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under the SC/ST Act for the alleged offences.
- Whether the allegations and evidence disclosed are sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the privilege of anticipatory bail can be extended to some accused while being denied to others in the same case.
Legislation cited
- Bihar National Security Act, 2023 — s. 110, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste based violence
- false implication
- land dispute
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3989 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2025 Thana- ATRI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Deena Yadav @ Deena Prasad son of Kuldeep Prasad @ Kuldeep Yadav
Resident of Village- Ferozpur PS -Atri Dist -Gaya
2. Indradev Yadav @ Nardev Yadav Son of Late Mathura Yadav Resident of
Village- Ferozpur PS -Atri Dist -Gaya
3. Subodh Kumar @ Subodh Yadav son of Indradev Yadav @ Nardev Yadav
Resident of Village - Ferozpur PS - Atri Dist - Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kamlesh Das Son of Shivbalak Mochi Resident of Village- Ferozpur PS -
Atri Dist - Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 05-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Special Public Prosecutor 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 18.08.2025 in A.B.P. No. 204 of 2025 passed by the
learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in connection
with Atri P.S. Case No. 188 of 2025 registered under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 110, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS,
2023 as well as Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3989 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026
2/4
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that informant, despite receiving the notice,
chooses not to appear and contest. It is further submitted that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 18.08.2025, at 07:00 p.m., he was crossing the
field of Indradev Yadav @ Nardev Yadav (appellant no. 2) by
tractor carrying bricks for construction of house when the
accused persons including the appellants intercepted him and
Nardev assaulted him by khanti causing injury on head and
abused by taking caste name. Further, Sunil and Subodh
(appellant no. 3) also assaulted the informant while Sujeet
pelted stones at his son and Deepak along with Kalu snatched
his son’s mobile while Deena (appellant no. 1) assaulted his
sister-in-law by lathi.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated
in the instant case by the informant on account of dispute
relating to land. It is further submitted that informant himself
alleges that he was crossing the land of Nardev by tractor
carrying bricks, when the occurrence is alleged to have taken
place. It is next submitted that the informant does not assign any
motive for the occurrence. It is also submitted that as far as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3989 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026
3/4
appellants no. 1 and 3 are concerned, the allegation against them
is ornamental and there is no injury report of the sister-in-law of
the informant on record and the informant does not allege that
by what Sunil and Subodh assaulted him but as far as appellant
no. 2 is concerned against him, it is alleged that he assaulted by
khanti causing injury on head but then the injury has been
opined to be simple in nature.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants and
submits that from the side of the appellants also Atri P.S. Case
No. 187 of 2025 has been instituted which amply demonstrates
that the occurrence had taken place. It is further submitted that
appellant no. 2 is alleged to have assaulted the informant by
khanti causing injury on head and there is a specific allegation
against him that he also abused by taking caste name and the
occurrence is alleged to have taken place in a field, thus, was in
public view but then is not in a position to rebut the submissions
of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that
as far as appellants no. 1 and 3 are concerned, the allegation
against them does not inspire confidence and is ornamental in
nature.
6. The Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3989 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026
4/4
anticipatory bail to the appellant no. 2, namely, Indradev Yadav
@ Nardev Yadav in connection with the aforesaid case, hence,
his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, let the appellants
no. 1 and 3, 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.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is partly set aside
and this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.