Patna High Court
RINKU YADAV @ JAY KRISHNA YADAV @ JAYKRISHNA KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside and anticipatory bail is granted to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Rinku Yadav, appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the lower court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. The appellant claimed a clean antecedent and argued that the informant's complaint was delayed by ten months, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. He further contended that the alleged assault occurred inside a private residence and that he was falsely implicated. The State opposed the bail, relying on the seriousness of the offences listed. Considering the delay in filing the complaint and the possibility of false implication, the High Court set aside the order refusing bail, imposed bail conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act is justified in view of the ten‑month delay in filing the complaint and the claim of false implication.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354(B), 380, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- delay in complaint
- false implication
- Criminal Procedure Code
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4194 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2023 Thana- SHANKARPUR District- Madhepura
======================================================
RINKU YADAV @ JAY KRISHNA YADAV @ JAYKRISHNA KUMAR
S/O NAND KISHORE YADAV VILLAGE PARSA WARD NO 07. PS
SHANKARPUR DISTRICT MADHEPURA TOWN
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. RANI DEVI WIFE OF MAHENDRA RAM VILLAGE PARSA WARD NO
07. PS SHANKARPUR DISTRICT MADHEPURA TOWN
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Kumari Rashmi
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. No one appears on behalf of the informant.
3. 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 17.08.2023 in A.B.P. No. 1160 of 2023 passed by
the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Madhepura in connection
with Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 90 of 2023 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 380, 504,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4194 of 2023(4) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4
of the SC/ST Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that she had gone to attend call of nature when wife of
Rinku started abusing, on objection, Rinku assaulted her by lathi
and tore her saree, but she fled and came back home, where
accused persons and Rinku along with Nand Kishore dragged
her to the courtyard and dashed her on the ground and assaulted
by fist, leg and danda till she became unconscious.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that the date of occurrence is
16.01.2022 and a complaint case came to be instituted ten
months thereafter on 11.11.2022 and based on which the instant
FIR came to be instituted on 01.06.2023, as such, it is submitted
that delay in instituting the complaint case itself casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted
that even presuming what has been alleged is true without
admitting then the occurrence of assault is alleged in the house
of the informant, thus, was not in public view.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4194 of 2023(4) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
appeal.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant and also taking into consideration the
fact that a complaint case was instituted after delay of 10
months. the order dated 17.08.2023 in A.B.P. No. 1160 of 2023
passed by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Madhepura in
connection with Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 90 of 2023, is hereby
set aside and the appellant above-named, in the event of his
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) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 90 of 2023 subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
8. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…