Patna High Court
Bhim YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn after the court permitted the appellant to withdraw it.
Summary
The appellant, Bhim Yadav, was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and related provisions for the alleged assault and death of his father. The informant’s FIR named other accused, and the wife of the deceased did not identify the appellant as a participant. The police investigation culminated in a final form exonerating the appellant, and no cognizance of the case had been taken. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act seeking anticipatory bail, which had been rejected by the Special Judge. The High Court, after hearing, allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act despite the rejection by the Special Judge.
- Whether the appeal is maintainable when the investigating agency has filed a final form exonerating the appellant and cognizance has not been taken.
- Whether the appellant may be permitted to withdraw the appeal.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14(A)(2), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST (POA) Act
- false implication
- withdrawal of appeal
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5420 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-297 Year-2024 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Bhim Yadav Son of Bhageshwar Yadav Village- Parari, Ps- Lauriya Dist-
West champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Krishna Mahto son of Late Vinod Dhangar Village- Parari, Dhangar Toli, Ps-
Lauriya Dist- West champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP
Mr. Sajeev Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 13-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned
Spl. P.P. for the State, Sri Sadanand Paswan 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 against the rejection of prayer for
anticipatory bail vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the
learned A.D.J. - 1st cum Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
Bettiah, West Champaran in A.B.P. No. 2259 of 2024 arising out
of Lauriya P.S. Case No. 297 of 2024 dated 01.09.2024
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1)
read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. and under Section 3(2)(v)
of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5420 of 2024(5) dt.13-01-2026
2/4
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has antecedent of five cases and the informant alleges
that 31-8-2024, his father after having his dinner, was going to
attend Janmastami pooja at 7:30 PM, when appellant, Sikandar
along with five unknown accused intercepted him and started
assaulting him and when 2-3 villagers came to save him, the
accused persons also assaulted them, further the appellant
assaulted his father by lathi causing injury all over his body,
while Sikandar assaulted him by farsa causing injury on head,
thereafter the villagers brought his father to hospital at Lauriya
from where he was referred to GMCH Bettiah, where he died
during the course of treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
appellant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. It is further
submitted that though it is alleged that 2-3 villagers came to
save his father who were also assaulted by the accused persons,
but the name of the villagers is also not disclosed in the FIR. It
is also submitted that statement of the mother of the informant
and wife of the deceased was recorded at para-18 of the case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5420 of 2024(5) dt.13-01-2026
3/4
diary, wherein she has stated that her husband on 31-8-2024,
had gone to Baswari, where he was intercepted by five named
accused persons who assaulted her husband causing injury
leading to his death subsequently. It is next submitted that the
wife of the deceased categorically stated that it were the accused
persons namely, Asrafi Dangar, Dinesh Dangar, Ram Singh
Danger, Aarti Devi and Naga Dangar who had assaulted her
husband. It is thus submitted that when wife of the deceased had
not taken the name of the appellant in the assault that amply
demonstrates that informant for ulterior reasons implicated the
appellant in the instant case despite being not an eyewitness to
the occurrence nor disclosing in the FIR or in his subsequent
statement that how he came to know that who assaulted his
father. It is next submitted that Ram Babu Dangar had also
instituted Lauria PS Case No. 296 of 2024 with respect to the
same occurrence, but then in the said FIR it was not even
remotely suggested that father of the informant was also
assaulted. It is further submitted that the police after
investigation came to a considered conclusion that appellant is
innocent thus submitted final form exonerating the appellant of
the allegation as alleged in the FIR and submitted final form No.
108 of 2025. It is next submitted that cognizance till date has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5420 of 2024(5) dt.13-01-2026
4/4
not been taken, on which the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant and the learned Spl. PP submits that
since final form has been submitted and cognizance till date has
not been taken hence appellant as of now does not have any
apprehension of arrest, as such the appeal is fit to be dismissed.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant
seeks permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file
afresh if need arises.
6. Permission is accorded.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…