Patna High Court
BIPIN YADAV @ VIPIN YADAVversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the lower court's order denying anticipatory bail and allowed the appeal, directing bail upon conditions.
Summary
The appellants, four members of the Yadav family, were charged under several IPC sections and the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged assault, intimidation and caste-based abuse arising from a land dispute with the informant, Lakhan Bhuiyan. Their application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Exclusive Special Judge on 13 September 2023. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the notice to the informant had been validly served, whether the allegations in the FIR were sufficiently specific, and whether the pending civil suit indicated false implication. The court held that the notice was valid, the allegations were general and did not justify denial of bail, and the land dispute context undermined the credibility of the informant's claims. Consequently, the order denying anticipatory bail was set aside and the appeal was allowed, directing the appellants to be released on bail upon furnishing bond and sureties, subject to Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Issues considered
- The validity of the notice served to the informant regarding the pendency of the appeal.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR are specific enough to deny anticipatory bail under the IPC and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the pending civil suit between the parties indicates false implication and affects bail considerations.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in light of the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- IPC offences
- land dispute
- notice service
- bail
- criminal appeal
- scheduled caste atrocities
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4850 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2023 Thana- SUHAIL District- Gaya
======================================================
1. BIPIN YADAV @ VIPIN YADAV SON OF BAJAN YADAV R/o Village-
Majhauli (Manjhauli), P.S.-Sohail, District-Gaya.
2. Mahendra Yadav Son of Bajan Yadav R/o Village-Majhauli (Manjhauli),
P.S.-Sohail, District-Gaya.
3. Bindu Yadav Son of Somnath Yadav @ Shivnath Yadav R/o Village-
Majhauli (Manjhauli), P.S.-Sohail, District-Gaya.
4. Kapil Yadav @ Kapildeo Kumar Son of Mahendra Yadav R/o Village-
Majhauli (Manjhauli), P.S.-Sohail, District-Gaya.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Lakhan Bhuiyan Son of Late Rampal Bhuiyan Resident of Village-Majhauli,
P.S.-Sohail, District-Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Diwakar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 21-04-2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. No one appears on behalf of the informant.
3. The appellants have challenged the order dated
13.09.2023 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge,
SC/ST Special Court, Gaya in connection with Sohail P. S. Case
No.09 of 2023, instituted for the offences under Sections 341,
323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)
(s)(f)(g),3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4850 of 2023(4) dt.21-04-2026
2/4
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby their prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
4. The learned Special P.P. submits that in compliance
of the order dated 08.11.2023, the concerned Superintendent of
Police was informed about the pendency of the instant appeal
and was requested to inform the informant about pendency of
the appeal through the concerned police station. It is also
submitted that informant has been informed about the pendency
of the appeal.
5. Since informant has been informant about the
pendency of the appeal, as such, the notice is deemed to be
validly served.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that 21.01.2023, he had
gone on his land at 8.00 A.M. for seeing the crop when accused
persons including the appellants came and abused him by taking
caste name and threatened to kill and started assaulting and Shiv
Nath chased with a sword in hand. Further, earlier they had fired
at his house and they want to grab his land.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4850 of 2023(4) dt.21-04-2026
3/4
informant on account of dispute relating to land. It is next
submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that allegation of abuse is general and
omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that it does not appear
probable that all accused in one go would have abused the
informant by taking caste name. It is submitted that allegation of
assault is also general and omnibus in nature. It is further
submitted that though informant in the FIR alleges that
appellants had earlier came to his house and fired, but then,
appellants are persons with clean antecedent which amply
demonstrates that no case was ever instituted but then the said
allegation has been alleged only to give seriousness to the case.
It is next submitted that father of appellant no.1 filed T.S.
No.251 of 2023 in which informant is a defendant as such a title
suit is pending between the parties. It is also submitted that this
perhaps explains why the informant despite receiving notice
chooses not to appear and contest.
8. The learned Special P.P. opposes the appeal.
9. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 13.09.2023 is set-aside.
10. The appeal stands allowed.
11. The appellants, above-named, in the event of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4850 of 2023(4) dt.21-04-2026
4/4
their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of eight weeks, are directed to be released on bail on
their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST
Special Court, Gaya in connection with Sohail P. S. Case No.09
of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…