Patna High Court
Yugesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order refusing anticipatory bail is set aside and anticipatory bail is granted subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The appellants, four Yadavs, appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the trial court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act, 2023 and the SC/ST Act. They argued that the informant had failed to appear despite notice, that they had clean antecedents (except one prior case for one accused), and that the allegations stemmed from a land dispute and were vague. The State opposed the bail, contending that the seriousness of the offences warranted denial. The High Court held that the trial court’s order refusing bail was untenable, set it aside, and granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and compliance with Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with a provision for cancellation if the accused failed to cooperate. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal to grant anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act was justified.
- Whether the non‑appearance of the informant bars the trial court’s discretion to deny bail.
- Whether the allegations, being general and arising from a land dispute, merit denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS can be imposed on anticipatory bail in this context.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14-A
- land dispute
- bail conditions
- criminal appeal
- scheduled castes
- scheduled tribes
- non‑cooperation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.501 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2025 Thana- FULKAHA District- Araria
======================================================
1. Yugesh Yadav S/o Late Ganesh Lal Yadav Resident of village - Manikpur,
Ward No. 12, Police Station - Fulkaha, District - Araria
2. Khudiya Yadav @ Pramod Yadav S/o Upen Yadav Resident of village -
Manikpur, Ward No. 12, Police Station - Fulkaha, District - Araria
3. Anmol Yadav S/o Bechan Yadav Resident of village - Manikpur, Ward No.
12, Police Station - Fulkaha, District - Araria
4. Bhupen Yadav S/o Bechan Yadav Resident of village - Manikpur, Ward No.
12, Police Station - Fulkaha, District - Araria
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bhupdeo Rajak S/o Late Surya Narayan Rajak Resident of village -
Manikpur, Ward No. 15, Police Station - Fulkaha, District - Araria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arun
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 27-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Mr. Binay Krishna.
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 16.12.2025 in A.B.P. No. 2113 of 2025 and 2114 of
2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Araria in connection with Fulkaha P.S. Case No.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.501 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
2/4
127 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 308(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023
as well as Sections 3(i)(r) and 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset,
submits that the instant appeal was tagged with Criminal Appeal
No. 471 of 2021 (Rajeev Yadav @ Rajiv Yadav Vs. The State of
Bihar) in which the informant despite receiving notice chose not
to appear and contest.
4. Since informant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 471
of 2026 despite receiving notice did not appear to contest, as
such, no useful purpose would be served by issuing notice in the
instant appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellant no. 1, 2 and 4 are persons with clean antecedent and
appellant no. 3 has antecedent of one case and the informant
alleges that cattles of accused persons were grazing in his field,
on objection accused persons abused by taking caste name and
assaulted and Rajeev tried to strangulate by a towel while
Yugesh abused by caste name and threatened.
6. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
allegation of abuse is general and omnibus in nature. It is also
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.501 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
3/4
submitted that land dispute in between the parties is brewing
and Rajeev Yadav has been granted the privilege of anticipatory
bail by an order dated 27.04.2026 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.
471 of 2026. It is also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory
bail is granted to the appellants, the appellants will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their
innocence.
7. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the
appeal.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the order dated 16.12.2025 in A.B.P.
No. 2113 of 2025 and 2114 of 2025 passed by the learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Araria in
connection with Fulkaha P.S. Case No. 127 of 2025, is hereby
set aside, and the appellants above-named, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks from today, 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/successor
court in connection with Fulkaha P.S. Case No. 127 of 2025
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.501 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
4/4
the BNSS.
9. However, it is made clear that in the event if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that appellants despite
giving assurance to this Court are not co-operating in the
investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the appellants.
10. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…