Patna High Court
Dinesh Yadav @ Dinesh YadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court directed the appellants to surrender on 23‑03‑2026 and ordered the trial court to consider their anticipatory bail application on that day, effectively granting bail subject to surrender.
Summary
The appellants, thirteen Yadavs, were charged under several IPC sections and the SC/ST Act for alleged caste-based assault and robbery against an informant and his son. They filed an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act seeking anticipatory bail after a trial court refused it. The prosecution argued that a charge‑sheet had been filed, cognizance taken, and that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act barred bail. The defence contended that the allegations were vague, injuries were minor, no arrests or summons were made, and no Section 82/83 process had been issued, making anticipatory bail appropriate. The High Court, noting the general nature of the allegations and the lack of serious injury, directed the appellants to surrender on 23‑03‑2026 and ordered the trial court to consider their bail application on that day, subject to verification of Section 82 proceedings. The appeal was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the SC/ST Act when cognizance has been taken and a charge‑sheet filed.
- Whether the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies to the appellants.
- Whether the general and omnibus nature of the allegations and the minor injuries affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the absence of summons or Section 82/83 process warrants bail and surrender conditions.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(a), 82, 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 341, 379, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 18, 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- caste violence
- general allegations
- cognizance
- Section 18
- Section 82 CrPC
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5013 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2018 Thana- NIMCHAKBATHANI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Dinesh Yadav @ Dinesh Yad S/O Sadhu Yadav @ Sadhu Saran R/O Village-
Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
2. Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Singh S/O Shivdahin Yadav @ Shivdahin Singh R/O
Village- Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
3. Ajay Yadav S/O Shivdahin Yadav @ Shivdahin Singh R/O Village- Kasi
Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
4. Gautam Yadav @ Gautam Kumar S/O Binda Yadav @ Bindu Bhushan Alok
R/O Village- Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
5. Pramod Yadav @ Pramod Kumar S/O Jalandhar Yadav @ Jalendra Prasad
R/O Village- Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
6. Uttam Yadav @ Uttam Kumar S/O Binda Yadav @ Bindu Bhushan Alok
R/O Village- Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
7. Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar S/O Krishna Yadav @ Krishna Prasad
Yadav R/O Village- Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
8. Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar S/O Sukhari Yadav @ Ramasharay Prasad
R/O Village- Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
9. Ravindra Yadav @ Ravindra Kumar S/O Kapil Yadav @ Kapil Prasad R/O
Village- Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
10. Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar S/O Suresh Yadv @ Suresh Singh R/O
Village- Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
11. Makhi Yadav @ Makarjit Singh S/O Late Kash Yadav @ Kashi Singh R/O
Village- Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
12. Ravish Yadav @ Ravish Kumar S/O Kapil Yadav @ Kapil Prasad R/O
Village- Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
13. Varun Yadav @ Varun Kumar S/O Shivdahin Yadav @ Shivdahin Singh R/O
Village- Kasi Bigha, P.S- Neemchak Bathani, District- Gaya.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kavindra Chaudhary S/O Late Dasai Chaudhary R/O Village- Telari, P.S-
Neemchak Bathani, Distt.- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Puja, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5013 of 2024(4) dt.13-03-2026
2/6
ORAL ORDER
4 13-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
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 24.09.2024 in A.B.P. No. 300 of 2024 passed by
the learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST, Gaya in
connection with Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 31 of
2018 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323,
324, 307 and 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as well
as Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State
submits that in compliance of the order dated 22.11.2024
passed by a learned the then Coordinate Bench he had
already informed the informant about the pendency of the
instant appeal on which learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants submits that informant despite receiving
the notice chooses not to appear and contest. It is further
submitted that appellant no. 1 and 6 have antecedent of two
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5013 of 2024(4) dt.13-03-2026
3/6
cases, appellant no. 2 and 3 have antecedent of four cases,
appellant no. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are persons with clean
antecedent and appellant no. 11 has antecedent of one case
and appellant no. 13 has antecedent of five cases and the
informant alleges that on 23.03.2018 he had accompanied
his wife to the Chhat Ghat when at 06:00 p.m. people of
Kashi Bigha started assaulting his son Ranjeet and when
informant went to save his son the accused persons
including the appellants started abusing him by taking caste
name and assaulted him by Garasa and rod causing injury
on head and snatched his mobile and Rs.3,000/-, thereafter,
the police came and admitted him in a hospital.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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 allegation of abuse and
assault is general and omnibus in nature. It is next
submitted that it does not appear probable that all the
thirteen appellants in one go would have abused the
informant by taking caste name. It is also submitted that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5013 of 2024(4) dt.13-03-2026
4/6
though it is alleged that son of the informant was assaulted
by the accused persons but then from perusal of para 49 of
the case diary, it would manifest that the investigating
officer has recorded that Ranjeet disclosed that he did not
get himself examined by the Doctor as he suffered mild
injury. It is further submitted that the injury of the informant
has been opined to be simple. It is thus submitted that had
thirteen accused assaulted the informant in that event the
injury suffered would not have been opined to be simple in
nature. It is next submitted that during the course of
investigation appellants were given notice under Section
41(a) of the Cr.P.C. and the appellants cooperated in the
investigation, as such, the police never felt the need of
arresting them but then the police in a mechanical manner
submitted charge-sheet in the year 2018 and thereafter
cognizance came to be taken by an order dated 19.03.2022.
It is also submitted that since the police never felt the need
of arresting the appellants during the course of
investigation, whether it would be prudent for the Court to
send the appellants to jail merely because cognizance came
to be taken, more so when the allegation as alleged is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5013 of 2024(4) dt.13-03-2026
5/6
general and omnibus in nature.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants and submits
that since charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance
has been taken, as such, a prima facie offence is made out
and, as such, bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act shall apply
on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants never received any
summons after cognizance was taken or else they would
have approached the Court earlier. It is further submitted
that till date process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has
not been issued.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court was inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the appellants on the ground that allegation of assault
and abuse is general and omnibus in nature and the son of
the informant has suffered mild injury and the injury
suffered by the informant has been opined to be simple and
process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. till date has not been
issued but then order of cognizance cannot be ignored, as
such, the appellants are directed to surrender before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5013 of 2024(4) dt.13-03-2026
6/6
learned trial court on 23.03.2026 and if the appellants
surrender on 23.03.2026 in that event learned trial court
shall consider the case of the appellants on the same day.
7. It is made clear that the learned trial court shall
also verify whether process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has
been issued against the appellants or not and if it is found
that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued in that
event the learned trial court shall not be obliged to consider
the case of the appellants on the same day.
8. Hence, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…