Patna High Court
Manish YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the refusal of anticipatory bail and granted it to the appellant under the conditions prescribed.
Summary
Manish Yadav appealed against the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 115(2), 69, 89, 352 and 351(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act and Sections 3(i)(w) and 3(ii)(v‑a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The informant alleged that Yadav had a consensual relationship with her while her husband was alive, later exploiting her after the husband’s death, including an alleged abortion. Yadav contended that the allegations were false, that no offence under the SC/ST Act was made out, and that he would cooperate with the investigation. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail but could not refute Yadav’s claim of consensual relations. The Patna High Court, applying Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act and principles of anticipatory bail under CrPC Section 438, set aside the lower court’s order and granted bail on conditions, thereby allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act to grant anticipatory bail.
- Whether the facts alleged constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be denied in a case involving alleged exploitation and alleged abortion.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14‑A(2), 3(ii)(v‑a), 3(i)(w)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14‑A
- false accusation
- criminal procedure
- sexual exploitation
- abortion allegation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.53 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran
======================================================
Manish Yadav Son of Panchanan Yadav R/o Ward No. 1, Tamkuha Daunaha,
P.S. - Dhanaha, District - West Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anju Devi Wife of Alok Kumar, D/o Barosa Prasad R/o Village -
Singarpatti, P.S. - Padrona, Dist. - Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, 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
Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide
order dated 10.12.2025 in A.B.P. No. 2857 of 2025 passed by
the learned 1st District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, West Champaran at Bettiah in
connection with Bagaha Mahila P.S. Case No. 44 of 2025
registered under Sections 115(2), 69, 89, 352 and 351(2) of the
BNS as well as Sections 3(i)(w) and 3(ii)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.53 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/4
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that she married Alok about six years back. Further, her
husband went to a foreign country for earning, thus, she came to
her parental home and opened a shop where she met the
appellant who used to come to her shop. Further, the appellant,
on pretext of marriage, started establishing physical relation and
the same continued for two years. It is next alleged that after the
death of the husband of the informant, the appellant started
exploiting her and even got her aborted and about 10-20 days
back resiled from the marriage and said that now he will not
bear her expenses.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has 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
informant alleges that she was married to Alok about six years
ago and her husband had gone to a foreign country for earning
when she came back to her parental home where she came in
contact with the appellant and thereafter a relationship
developed and they even established physical relation. It is next
submitted that when the appellant and the informant came in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.53 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/4
contact at that time the husband of the informant was alive, thus,
there was absolutely no occasion for the appellant to establish
physical relation on pretext of marriage as marriage could not
have been performed without divorcing Alok. It is also
submitted that the relationship was consensual between two
consenting adults but when the husband of the informant died
thereafter the instant false case came to be instituted alleging
that appellant was exploiting her physically and even got her
aborted but then no documentary evidence on record has been
brought which could even remotely suggest that informant was
aborted. It is further submitted that appellant will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
It is next submitted that in the nature of allegation as alleged,
prima facie, no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail but then are not in a position to rebut the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that informant came in a relationship with the
appellant during the time when her husband was alive.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let
the appellant, above named, in the event of his arrest or
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.53 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
4/4
surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees
five thousand) 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 Code of Criminal
Procedure/482(2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…