Patna High Court
Rajan Yadav @ Rajan Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that the FIR did not disclose a specific caste‑based abuse and therefore no prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act existed, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail.
Summary
The appellants Rajan Yadav, Rahul Kumar and Bindeshwar Yadav were charged under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly hurling caste‑based abuses against an informant. They contended that the informant had demanded Rs.2 lakh for a business venture, and that the FIR was a retaliatory false case. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed anticipatory bail, but the court noted that the FIR did not specify the nature of the alleged abuses, so no prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act could be established. The court also observed that the appellants had filed a prior case against the informant, indicating a counter‑blast motive. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, set aside the lower court’s order, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a cognizable offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case where the FIR lacks specificity of caste‑based abuse.
- Whether the FIR filed by the informant is a retaliatory counter‑case against the appellants.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Special Penal Code (B.S.S.) — s. 115(2), 118, 126, 303(2), 351(2), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2), 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste abuse
- false FIR
- counter‑case
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4114 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Rajan Yadav @ Rajan Kumar Yadav S/O Bindeshwar Yadav R/o village -
Godhiyari, p.s- Phulparas , District- Madhubani
2. Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Yadav S/O BIndeshwar Yadav R/o village -
Godhiyari, p.s- Phulparas , District- Madhubani
3. Bindeshwar Yadav S/O Ajab Yadav R/o village - Godhiyari, p.s- Phulparas ,
District- Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mahesh Kumar Safi S/O Janki Safi R/o village - Mariyari,Ward N0.- 11, p.s-
Phulparas , District- Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ravi Prakash
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is under Section 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for
anticipatory bail in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 103 of
2024, registered under Sections 126, 115(2), 118, 303(2), 352,
351(2) of B.S.S. and 3(i)(r), 3(i) (s), 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. So far as allegation of hurling abuses is
concerned, the allegation is that the informant was abused on
caste line.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4114 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case and have not committed any offence. It is further
submitted that the informant taken Rs.2 lakh from the
petitioner for opening fertilizer, general stores and kirana shop,
hence the petitioner demanded the said money from the
informant, hence the informant lodged false and concocted
case against the petitioner to harass and humiliate and put
pressure upon him. It is further submitted that there is case
and counter case between the parties.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants
based upon the allegation made in the F.I.R.
6. There is no specificity of exactly what nature of
abuses were hurled on the informant and hence, prima facie no
offence under the provisions of SC//ST Act appears to be made
out against the appellants. Also taking into consideration the
fact that prior to the institution of the P.S. case by the
informant, the appellant, Ranjan Yadav, had also filed the case
against the informant and others in connection of Phulparas
P.S. Case No. 526 of 2024 dated 11.12.2024 under Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4114 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
126(2), 352, 115(2), 303 (2), 316(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the B.N.S.
Statement to this effect has been made in paragraph 14 of the
appeal of the instant appeal. Therefore, it appears that the
case lodged by the informant is by way of counter blast to the
case lodged by the appellant.
7. Under these circumstances, let all the appellants,
above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist-Madhubani-cum-Special
Judge SC/ST, Madhubani, in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case
No. 103 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
sanjeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.