Patna High Court
Ravindra Yadav @ Ravindra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appellate court set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail and allowed the appeal, directing the release of the appellant on bail with conditions.
Summary
Ravindra Yadav appealed against the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge that rejected his anticipatory bail application in a case involving multiple IPC offences and violations of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He argued that he has a clean record, was falsely implicated, the FIR was lodged five days after the alleged incident, and the alleged assault took place inside the informant's house, making the allegations implausible. The prosecution could not effectively counter these points. The Patna High Court set aside the lower court's order, allowed the appeal, and directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The decision underscores the court's emphasis on the need for a credible basis before denying anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of denying anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the present case?
- Whether the delay of five days in filing the FIR and the private nature of the alleged incident affect the validity of the charges.
- Whether the allegations against the appellant are sufficient to justify denial of bail under the IPC and SC/ST Act provisions.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 34, 341, 354, 379, 504
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- SC/ST Act
- IPC offences
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5459 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Supaul
======================================================
Ravindra Yadav @ Ravindra Kumar S/o- Badri Narayan Yadav Village-
Kusaha Ps- Bhaptiyahi, Dist- Supaul
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Niraj Kumar S/o- Dhayani Ram Village- Kamaldaha ward no-08, Ps-
Kishanpur Dist- Supaul
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Jha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
Mr.Vijay Kumar
Mr.Brahmanand Kumar
Mr.Mundrika Ram
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 28-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The appellant has challenged the order dated
24.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Supaul in connection
with ABP No.1290 of 2024 arising out of Supaul P. S. Case
No.34 of 2024, instituted for the offences under Sections 341,
323, 324, 354, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5459 of 2024(5) dt.28-04-2026
2/4
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that on 21.05.2024 at 11.00
A.M., all the accused persons including the appellant along with
150 unknown accused came variously arm came to the house of
the informant and stated abusing by taking caste name and
thereafter Om Prakash assaulted the informant by an iron rod
causing injury on head thereafter Birendra assaulted the
informant by butt of gun and Ravindra Yadav (appellant)
assaulted Bindeswhar Ram by farsa. Further, Bipin assaulted
Kapildeo by khanti and Nitish assaulted mother of the informant
by rod, thereafter Rajiv assaulted father of the informant and
Badri Narayan assaulted Arjun Yadav by butt of gun and it is
also alleged that 20-22 unknown accused also assaulted.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that it does not appear probable
that appellant with such precision and certainty could have
alleged who assaulted whom and by what. It is next submitted
that date of occurrence is 21.05.2024 and the FIR came to be
instituted on 26.05.2024 i.e. after a delay of five days without
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5459 of 2024(5) dt.28-04-2026
3/4
any plausible explanation. It is further submitted that if what has
been alleged by the informant is true in that event the doctors
would have informed the police that injured persons are being
treated in the hospital on account of assault. It is next submitted
that even presuming what has been alleged is true without
admitting, then entire occurrence took place at the house of the
informant, thus was not in public view. It is also submitted that
it does not appear probable that 150 unknown accused would
have gone to the house of the informant and if they had gone,
there must be some reason. It is next submitted that against the
informant, a case was instituted by a minor girl being Kishanpur
P. S. Case No. 128 of 2024, on account of which the villagers
were aggrieved. It is also submitted that even injury suffered by
the injured has been opined to be simple in nature.
5. The learned Special P. P. as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the bail
application but then are not in a position to rebut the submission
of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that
the FIR was instituted after a delay of five days and the
occurrence took place at the house of the informant, thus was
not in public view and a case has been instituted by a minor girl
against the informant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5459 of 2024(5) dt.28-04-2026
4/4
6. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, the
order dated 24.10.2024 is set-aside.
7. The appeal stands allowed.
8. The appellant, above-named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his
furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-1st-
cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Supaul in connection with ABP
No.1290 of 2024 arising out of Supaul P. S. Case No.34 of
2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2)
of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…