Patna High Court
Mantun YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The High Court allowed anticipatory bail to the appellants, setting aside the Special Judge’s order denying bail.
Summary
Mantun Yadav and Raja Ram Yadav were charged under multiple IPC sections (147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506) and sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly entering an informant's house, abusing her with caste slurs, assaulting her daughters, dousing them with kerosene and vandalising the house. The appellants sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Samastipur. On appeal, they contended that the case was fabricated as retaliation for a separate kidnapping case filed by a co‑accused, and that no offence under the SC/ST Act could arise from an incident that occurred inside the informant's residence. The State opposed the bail application. The Patna High Court held that, subject to the appellants surrendering within eight weeks and furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000 with two sureties each, they were entitled to bail, and consequently set aside the Special Judge’s order.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the appellants under the IPC and SC/ST Act charges?
- Whether the allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are maintainable given the facts alleged.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 354, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- IPC offences
- caste based violence
- criminal appeal
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5491 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2023 Thana- HATHAURI District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Mantun Yadav son of Rabindra Yadav Both Resident of Village- Kankar,
P.S.-Hathauri District- Samastipur
2. Raja Ram Yadav son of Late Pathlu Yadav Both Resident of Village-
Kankar, P.S.- Hathauri District- Samastipur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Hare Krishna Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. Public Prosecutor
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 15-01-2026 Despite filing Vakalatnama, none appears on behalf
of the respondent no. 2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the
State.
3. This appeal has been filed against the order dated
13.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
Samastipur in ABP No. 3063 of 2023 arising out of Hathauri
P.S. Case No. 119 of 2023 registered under Sections 147, 148,
149, 341, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the
prayer for anticipatory bail of appellants has been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5491 of 2023(4) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
4. As per F.I.R., these appellants along with other
named and 100 unknown persons entered the house of
informant, abused informant by caste name, assaulted her
daughters, poured kerosene oil on them and vandalized her
house.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are innocent and have committed no offence. As a
matter of fact, present case is counter blast of Hathauri P. S.
Case No. 95 of 2023 which was lodged by co-accused Ganga
Vishun Yadav against members of Paswan family whereby his
minor daughter was kidnapped and in retaliation, this false and
concocted case has been lodged only with a view to pressurize
the appellants for withdrawal of the aforesaid case. Allegation
against appellants is general and omnibus. He further submits
that the alleged incident took place inside the house of informant
and as such, no case under SC/ST Act is made out against the
appellants. Appellants claim clean antecedent.
6. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the appellants,
as named above, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a
period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5491 of 2023(4) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Samastipur in ABP
No. 3063 of 2023 arising out of Hathauri P.S. Case No. 119 of
2023.
8. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and
impugned order dated 13.10.2023 is set aside with respect to
these appellants only.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…