Patna High Court
Uday Shankar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court set aside the order refusing anticipatory bail and granted bail to the appellants subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, Uday Shankar Yadav and Guddu Kumar Yadav, were charged under several IPC sections and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in connection with a land‑dispute‑related altercation. The trial court refused their prayer for anticipatory bail on 13‑08‑2024. The appellants appealed under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, contending they have clean antecedents and were falsely implicated. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, but the High Court noted the allegations were vague and the informant had not appeared despite notice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act despite the serious offences alleged.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR sufficiently disclose a prima facie case to deny bail.
- Whether procedural compliance (notice to informant) affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 323, 327, 341, 354(B), 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste atrocities
- land dispute
- assault
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5123 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Uday Shankar Yadav S/o- Ramji Yadav Village- Madanpatti ward no 11 PS-
Rudrapur Distt-Madhubani
2. Guddu Kumar Yadav S/o- Vijay Kumar Yadav Village- Madanpatti Jalsain
PS- Rudrapur Distt-Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Upendra Ram S/o- Late Lakhan Ram Village- Madanpatti Ps- Rudrapur
Dist- Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shivnandan Bharti, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 27-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Spl. P.P. 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 13.08.2024 in A.B.P. No. 1509 of 2024 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Madhubani in connection with Madhubani
SC/ST P.S. Case No. 36 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 327, 341, 323, 504, 506,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5123 of 2024(4) dt.27-01-2026
2/4
379 and 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(f) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
Act.
3. The learned Special PP submits that, in
compliance of the order dated 22.11.2024, he had informed the
concerned police station to inform the informant about
pendency of the instant appeal. It is also submitted that despite
information, the informant chooses not to appear and contest.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that his father had purchased a piece of land in the year
2009 from Uday Shankar and Late Vijay Kumar for which
Jamabandi No. 3320 was created, further on 27.05.2024 at 11:00
PM he came to know that soil is being filled on the land,
accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence and objected
and accused persons assaulted him and abused by taking caste
name, further on orders of Ashok, accused Baiju assaulted by
farsa causing injury on head and Baijnath snatched chain of his
wife and acted inappropriately with her and Uday was
videographing the occurrence and said that the video would be
made viral and captured his land.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5123 of 2024(4) dt.27-01-2026
3/4
appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated
in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that on account of dispute relating to land, the
occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is further submitted
that no doubt Uday had sold his land in favour of the father of
the informant, but then informant was claiming more land than
what was sold to him, as such, an altercation had taken place. It
is also submitted that no doubt allegation is of abuse and assault,
but then allegation of abuse is not specific and appellants are not
alleged to have assaulted the informant or his wife, this perhaps
explains why the informant despite having notice chooses not to
appear and contest.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the appellants.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the order dated 13.08.2024 in A.B.P.
No. 1509 of 2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Madhubani in
connection with Madhubani SC/ST P.S. Case No. 36 of 2024 is
hereby set aside and the appellants above-named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court within a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5123 of 2024(4) dt.27-01-2026
4/4
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
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 Madhubani SC/ST P.S. Case No. 36 of
2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482
(2) of the BNSS.
8. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.