Patna High Court
Sukhdev Yadav @ Bhaglu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed, granting bail to the appellant subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The appellant, Sukhdev Yadav, appealed against the order of the Exclusive Special Judge that denied his anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under several sections of the B.N.S. and the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He claimed to have a clean record and alleged that the informant’s complaint was false, arising from a monetary dispute between his friend Pintu Manjhi and the informant. The Special Public Prosecutor argued that notice of the appeal had been validly served despite the respondent’s non‑appearance. The High Court examined the validity of the notice, the factual matrix of the alleged incident, and the appellant’s claim of false implication. Finding merit in the appellant’s contentions, the Court set aside the lower court’s order, allowed the appeal, and directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice of appeal was validly served on the respondent.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious charges under the B.N.S. and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellant was falsely implicated in the offences.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 126(2), 318(4), 319(2), 3(5), 352, 482(2), 74
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- criminal procedure
- bail
- false implication
- service of notice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4751 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Gaya
======================================================
Sukhdev Yadav @ Bhaglu Yadav S/O Late Ram Baran Yadav @ Late Badhan
Yadav Resident of Village - Tekuna, P.S. - Bodhgaya District-Gayaji.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mamta Devi w/o Late Umesh Manjhi R/o Village Kachanpur, P.S.
Bodhgaya, District- Gayaji.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajit Ranjan Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 06-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The appellant has challenged the order dated
18.10.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge,
SC/ST (POA) Court, Gayaji in connection with ABP No.265 of
2025 arising out of Mahila P. S. Case No.39 of 2025, instituted
for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 319(2),
318(4), 352, 3(5),of the B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby his prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail has been rejected.
3. The learned Special P.P. submits that in compliance
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4751 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
of the order dated 23.02.2026, the S.S.P., Gayaji was informed
about the pendency of the instant appeal and was requested to
inform the respondent no.2 about the same. It is also submitted
that respondent no.2, despite being aware that the instant appeal
is pending, chooses not to appear and contest.
4. In view of the submissions made by learned
Special P.P. the notice is deemed to be validly served.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that on 21.07.2025 at about
8.00 A.M. she went for asking the due amount of Rs.14,000/-
from the accused persons i.e. her brother in-law Pintu Manjhi,
sister in-law Malti Devi and petitioner on which they started
abusing and appellant assaulted and abused her by caste name.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that date of occurrence is
21.07.2025 and the FIR came to be instituted on 29.07.2025. It
is next submitted that appellant is friend of Pintu Manjhi who is
brother in-law of the informant and are having dispute relating
to money, since appellant supports Pintu and Malti, hence he
also came to be implicated with general and omnibus allegation.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4751 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
It is next submitted that this perhaps explains why appellant
despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and contest.
7. The learned Special P. P. opposes the bail
application.
8. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 18.10.2025 is set-aside.
9. The appeal stands allowed.
10. The appellant, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail
on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Court, Gayaji in connection with ABP No.265 of 2025 arising
out of Mahila P. S. Case No.39 of 2025, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…