Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sarjun Yadav @ Sarjun KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The High Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, setting aside the lower court's refusal.

Summary

The appellant, Sarjun Yadav, appealed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against a lower court order refusing anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged assault and caste-based abuse. The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident without justification, and that the allegations were vague and omnibus. He also highlighted his physical handicap, claiming he could not walk, yet was being implicated. The State and the informant opposed the bail but could not counter the appellant's points regarding the FIR delay and the nature of the allegations. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond and sureties, and set aside the impugned order, thereby allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the present case.
  • Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the general nature of the allegations justify granting bail.
  • Whether the appellant's physical handicap impacts the consideration of bail.
  • Whether the conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. can be imposed while granting anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • SC/ST Act
  • false implication
  • FIR delay
  • handicap
  • bail conditions
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4582 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
                 Sarjun Yadav @ Sarjun Kumar S/O Chandradev Yadav R/O Village- Haneya,
                 P.S- Kutumba, Distt.- Aurangabad (Bihar).
                                                                     ... ... Appellant/s
                                                   Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Raushan Kuamr S/o Lalit Paswan R/o Village Haneya, P.S Kutumba, Distt.-
                  Aurangabad (Bihar).
                                                                       ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant       :        Mr. Aman Vishal, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Special P.P.
                 For the Informant       :        Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate

                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   21-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special

                   P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   informant.

                                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 30.10.2025,

                   passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-

                   Special Judge (SC/ST, NDPS & Children Act), Aurangabad

                   (Bihar) in connection with Aurangabad SC/ST P.S. Case No.35 of

                   2025, registered under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 352,

                   351(2) and 74 of B.N.S., 2023 as well as Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),

                   3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4582 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
                                             2/3




                       3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

          submits that appellant has antecedent of one case but then the said

          case was also instituted by the informant. It is next submitted that

          from perusal of para-3, it would manifest that the earlier FIR was

          instituted under sections of Indian Penal Code which were bailable

          in nature. It is next submitted that informant alleges that on

          30.08.2025 at around 08:00 p.m., he along with his tractor driver

          Dhanesh Vishwakarma were going to the house of Dhanesh

          Vishwakarma when the accused persons including the appellant

          intercepted them and abused and assaulted them and threatened to

          refrain from driving tractor through that passage and further

          threatened to withdraw earlier case and also abused by taking caste

          name and when mother of the informant came, she was abused and

          assaulted.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

          appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations,

          as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that allegation of abuse

          and assault is general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted

          that date of occurrence is 30.08.2025 and the FIR came to be

          instituted on 02.09.2025, i.e., after a delay of two days without any

          plausible explanation. It is next submitted that a specific pleading

          has been made at para-11 that appellant is handicapped and is
               Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4582 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
                                                            3/3




                         unable to walk but still he came to be implicated.

                                      5. The learned Special P.P. and learned counsel

                         appearing on behalf of the informant oppose the appeal but then

                         are not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel

                         appearing on behalf of the appellant that allegation of assault and

                         abuse is general and omnibus in nature and the FIR was instituted

                         after a delay of two days.

                                      6. Considering the submissions made by learned

                         counsel for the appellant, let appellant, above named, in the event

                         of his arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court within a

                         period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be

                         released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/-

                         (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each

                         to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is

                         pending in connection with Aurangabad SC/ST P.S. Case No.35 of

                         2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2)

                         of the B.N.S.S.

                                      7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the

                         appeal stands allowed.


                                                    (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Sanjay/-

U          T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.