Patna High Court
Kishundev Yadav @ Kishun YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the lower court’s order refusing bail and granted bail to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Kishundev Yadav, appealed against the refusal of regular bail under Section 14(A)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case stems from a murder allegation where the appellant claims he was falsely implicated and that the FIR was based merely on suspicion without any eyewitness testimony. The Special Public Prosecutor and the informant opposed bail, citing a similar pending case against the appellant, though the lower court had earlier acquitted him in a related matter. The High Court examined the material on record, found no substantive evidence linking the appellant to the crime, and imposed standard bail conditions including sureties and cooperation with the trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court’s order refusing bail, granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of regular bail under Section 14(A)(ii) of the SC/ST Act is justified in the present murder case.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the charges and a pending similar case.
- Whether the lower court's order refusing bail can be set aside on the ground of lack of substantive evidence.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 118(2), 303(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14(A)(ii), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- false implication
- murder
- criminal antecedent
- court order set aside
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4511 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2025 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Kishundev Yadav @ Kishun Yadav S/o- Chhotelal Yadav Village- Bari
Kothiya PS-Gangour District- Khagaria
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Punam Devi W/o- Mahgu Mochi @ Khonu R/v- Bari Kothiya W.No-2, Ps-
Gangour Dist-Khagaria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 Heard Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, Mr. Amit Prakash, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and Mrs. Usha
Kumari 1, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(ii) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”)
against the refusal of prayer for regular bail vide order dated
07.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
First-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Khagaria in connection with
Khagaria (Gangour) P.S. Case No. 157 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
15.05.2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 118(2), 303(2) of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4511 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
3. The case relates to the murder of the husband of the
informant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in
the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the appellant has not
committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further
submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the
Respondent No. 2 has filed the present F.I.R. merely on the
basis of suspicion and she is not an eye witness of the alleged
occurrence and even no one has seen the alleged occurrence and
except the suspicion, no other cogent material has come during
investigation to suggest the involvement of the appellant in the
present occurrence. He further submits that the police after
investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant and
the appellant is in custody since 16.07.2025.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State as
well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant
and submits that the appellant carries one more case of similar
nature but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4511 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
petition that the appellant has been acquitted by the learned
Court below itself.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, let the appellant, above named, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Sessions Judge First cum Special Judge (SC/ST),
Khagaria in connection with Khagaria (Gangour) P.S. Case No.
157 of 2025, with the following conditions :-
(1) Appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at any
stage, it is found that the appellant has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of
bail bond of the appellant. However, the acceptance of bail
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4511 of 2025(4) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U t
Checking your session…