Yogendra Jadav @ Jogendar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4573 of 2025
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2021 Thana- SC/ST District- Saharsa
                 ======================================================
                 Yogendra Jadav @ Jogendar Yadav S/O Late Aghori Yadav Resident of
                 village- Bhasti (Basti) P.S- Sonbarsha (Kashnagar), District- Saharsa.

                                                                                    ... ... Appellant/s
                                                        Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Radha Devi W/O Kari Paswan R/O Village- Bhasti (Basti), P.S- Sonbarsha
                 (Kashnagar), Distt.- Saharsa.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    :         Mr. Rashmi Jha, Adv.
                 For the State          :         Mr.Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P.
                 For the Respondent No.2 :        Mr. Sugandh Saurav, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   04-06-2026                 Heard Ms. Rashmi Jha, learned Advocate for the

                   appellant and Ms. Usha Kumari No.-1, learned Special P.P for

                   the State through virtual mode. Respondent no.2 is represented

                   by Mr. Sugandh Saurav, learned Advocate through virtual mode.

                               2. The instant appeal is preferred against the order

                   dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned A.D.J.-I-cum- Special

                   Judge SC/ST Act, Saharsa, whereby the prayer for anticipatory

                   bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with

                   Saharsa SC/ST P.S. Case no. 6 of 2021 registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 447, 504,

                   506/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(wi),

                   3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4573 of 2025(3) dt.04-06-2026
                                             2/5




          (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

                       3. Allegedly on the given date and time of occurrence,

          while the informant was at her home, in the meanwhile, the

          appellant along with other accused persons came there and

          started putting bamboo fence on the land of informant. When

          the same was objected, this appellant started abusing the

          informant (respondent no. 2 herein) by taking her caste name

          and thrashed her down by catching the hair. There is further

          allegation against other co-accused persons of abuse and assault.

                       4. Learned Advocate for the appellant taking this

          Court through the F.I.R contended that the alleged occurrence

          took place on 22.01.2021 at about 9:00 A.M. but surprisingly

          the present F.I.R came to be instituted on 15.02.2021, without

          there being any proper explanation of delay, except the

          respondent no. 2 was pursuing the matter in Panchayat. Hence,

          the false accusation and afterthought deliberation cannot be

          ruled out. From the reading of the F.I.R. it is also evident that

          in order to settle a land dispute, the present F.I.R. has been

          instituted to put pressure upon the accused persons and wreak

          vengeance. It is further contended that soon after the institution

          of    F.I.R.     the appellant and others have been allowed the

          privilege of         Section 41(1) of the Cr.P.C. However, after
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4573 of 2025(3) dt.04-06-2026
                                             3/5




          investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance

          is taken for the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Hence, necessity

          of the present appeal. It is also contended that with respect to

          the same cause of              occurrence, a complaint case bearing

          Complaint Case No. 1053/2021 was also instituted, wherein the

          appellant has been allowed bail. Learned Special Judge while

          considering the prayer for anticipatory bail has not appreciated

          the relevant facts that the F.I.R. has been instituted in order to

          settle the land dispute and the allegation of abuse and assault is

          nothing but concocted one. There is no independent witness to

          the alleged occurrence.

                       5. On the other hand, learned Special P.P. for the State

          as well as learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 have

          vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant and submitted

          that once the investigation has been conducted and the charge-

          sheet has been submitted and later on cognizance has been taken

          for the offences as alleged in the F.I.R., the anticipatory bail is

          not maintainable in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme

          Court in the case of Bachu Das vs. State of Bihar & Anr.

          [(2014) 3 SCC 471]. It is further contended that there is specific

          accusation against the appellant of abusing and assaulting the

          informant, constituting the offence under the penal provisions
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4573 of 2025(3) dt.04-06-2026
                                             4/5




          of the SC/ST Act.

                       6. Having considered the submissions advanced by

          the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note

          of the fact that there is inordinate delay of 24 days in lodging of

          the F.I.R., besides the genesis of the occurrence which clearly

          shows that the parties are bickering over the land dispute and

          with regard to fencing, some occurrence has taken place;

          however, it does not appear that this incidence of intimidation

          and assault has taken place only on account of the reason that

          the informant belongs to the member of the vulnerable section

          of the society and, as such, the penal provision of the SC/ST

          Act does not attract. This issue has been explained in the

          decision rendered by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble

          Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of

          Uttarakhand & Anr. [(2020) 10 SCC 710], where the Court has

          clarified that all the intentional insult/intimidation would not

          attract the penal provision of the SC/ST Act, unless such

          intimidation and assault has been made only on account of the

          fact that the victim belongs to the vulnerable section of the

          society. So far the decision in the case of Bachu Das (supra) is

          concerned, this Court has not even a slightest hesitation that

          whenever the jurisdictional Court, prima facie, finds that the
            Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4573 of 2025(3) dt.04-06-2026
                                                         5/5




                      materials on record clearly make out a case under the penal

                      provision of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.O.) Act, the bar under Section 18

                      thereof comes into play. However, in the case in hand, the

                      materials available on record suggest otherwise, let the above

                      named appellant, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or

                      surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four

                      weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten

                      thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

                      satisfaction of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I-

                      cum- Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharsa, in connection with

                      Saharsa SC/ST P.S. Case No. 6 of 2021, subject to the condition

                      as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further

                      condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family

                      members of the appellant.

                                   7. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and

                      position obtaining in law, this Court finds substance in the

                      present appeal and accordingly the impugned order dated

                      20.09.2025 passed by the learned A.D.J.-I-cum-Special Judge

                      SC/ST Act, Saharsa, is hereby set aside. The present appeal

                      stands allowed.


                                                  (Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
U       T