Patna High Court
Vikash Kumar Yadav @ Abhishek SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to appellants 1, 2, 4 and 5 but denied it to appellant 3, holding that the former were not specifically implicated while the latter faced a specific allegation of grievous assault.
Summary
The appellants appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the trial court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail. They contended that they have clean antecedents and that the FIR contains vague, omnibus allegations of caste-based abuse, with no specific charge of assault against appellants 2, 4 and 5, and that the injury report does not support the claim of a rib injury attributed to appellant 1. The Special Public Prosecutor and the informant argued that specific grievous injuries were alleged, particularly against appellant 3, Pradip Kumar Yadav. The High Court examined the specificity of the allegations and, applying Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, granted anticipatory bail to appellants 1, 2, 4 and 5 subject to bond and surety conditions, but denied bail to appellant 3 due to a specific allegation of assault causing grievous injury. Consequently, the appellate court partially set aside the lower court's order and allowed the appeal in part.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act and Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the nature of the allegations.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR against each appellant are sufficiently specific to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the FIR and injury report substantiate a specific charge of assault against appellant no. 3, Pradip Kumar Yadav.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 149, 307, 323, 341, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- false implication
- specific allegations
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- scheduled castes
- scheduled tribes
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4907 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Vikash Kumar Yadav @ Abhishek Singh S/o Shri Krishna Yadav R/o vill -
Motirampur, P.S .- Bihiya, Distt. - Bhojpur
2. Tilakdhari Yadav S/o Paras Nath Yadav R/o vill - Motirampur, P.S .- Bihiya,
Distt. - Bhojpur
3. Pradip Kumar Yadav S/o Manejar Yadav R/o vill - Motirampur, P.S.- Bihiya,
Distt.- Bhojpur
4. Raju Kumar Yadav @ Raju Yadav @ Raju Kur Yadav S/o Hridayanand
Yadav R/o vill - Motirampur, P.S.- Bihiya, Distt.- Bhojpur
5. Ramlakhan Yadav @ Lakhan Yadav S/o Jagdish Yadav R/o vill -
Motirampur, P.S. - Bihiya, Distt.- Bhojpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Raju Kumar S/o Rajendra Prasad R/o vill - Narayanpur, P.S. - Bihiya, Distt.-
Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
Mr. Diwakar, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priya Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Saheeba Naz, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Special Public Prosecutor 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4907 of 2024(4) dt.22-04-2026
2/5
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 21.09.2024 in A.B.P. No. 2067 of 2024 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case
No. 20 of 2024 registered under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323,
307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that on 26.03.2024, at
08:30 a.m., cricket was being played in between the village
Narayanpur and Motipur in which a fight ensued amongst the
children but the dispute was settled. Further, on the same day, in
the evening, at 06:00 p.m., the informant and Ramji Ram were
going to purchase grocery when the named accused persons
including the appellants intercepted them and Pradip Kumar
Yadav (appellant no. 3) abused the informant by taking caste
name and assaulted by rod causing injury on head while Vikash
Kumar (appellant no. 1) assaulted the informant by knife
causing injury on rib and the informant fell down and thereafter
Nitish Kumar Yadav assaulted him causing injury on head.
Further, Suraj Yadav assaulted the informant by rod causing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4907 of 2024(4) dt.22-04-2026
3/5
fracture of leg and Bablu Yadav assaulted by rod causing
fracture of right hand thereafter all accused assaulted and
abused by taking caste name.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on
account of dispute amongst the children while playing cricket,
the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next
submitted that no doubt, it is alleged that accused persons
intercepted the informant and assaulted but then from perusal of
the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no
specific allegation of assault is alleged against the appellants no.
2, 4 and 5. It is also submitted that as far as appellant no. 1 is
concerned, he is alleged to have assaulted the informant by
knife causing injury on rib but then from perusal of the injury
report, it would manifest that informant has not suffered any
injury on rib rather has suffered injury on head and leg. It is
further submitted that though Pradip Kumar Yadav (appellant
no. 3) is alleged to have assaulted the informant by rod causing
injury on head but then even Nitish Kumar Yadav is alleged to
have assaulted the informant causing injury on head but then
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4907 of 2024(4) dt.22-04-2026
4/5
there is only one injury on head of the informant on which
learned Special P.P. submits that no doubt, Pradip Kumar Yadav
and Nitish Kumar Yadav are alleged to have assaulted the
informant on head causing injury but then specific allegation is
alleged against Pradip Kumar Yadav that he assaulted by rod
causing injury on head but then it is submitted that against
Nitish Kumar Yadav the weapon by which he assaulted is not
alleged on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that it amply demonstrates that Nitish Kumar
Yadav has been falsely implicated in the FIR. It is next
submitted that allegation of abuse is general and omnibus in
nature.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants but then are not
in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that allegation of abuse is
general and omnibus in nature and allegation of assualt against
the appellants no. 2, 4 and 5 is not specific but then it is
submitted that specific allegation of assualting the informant on
head by rod is against Pradip Kumar Yadav and the injury on
head has been opined to be grievous in nature.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4907 of 2024(4) dt.22-04-2026
5/5
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let
the appellants no. 1, 2, 4 and 5, above-named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending in
connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
7. The Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the appellant no. 3, namely, Pradip Kumar
Yadav in connection with the aforesaid case. Hence, his prayer
for anticipatory bail is rejected.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is partly set aside
and this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…