Patna High Court
Jay Prakash Yadav @ Jay Prakash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Jay Prakash Yadav, was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and several provisions of the Bihar National Security Act, 2023, as well as the Arms Act, for alleged involvement in a violent incident at a bus‑stand. He sought anticipatory bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, claiming a clean antecedent and that the FIR specifically implicated other persons for the firing and assaults. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, arguing that the appellant’s presence at the scene encouraged the other accused to commit the offences. The court examined the allegations and concluded that, despite the appellant not being directly accused of firing or assault, his presence was sufficient to deny the privilege of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the appeal for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether mere presence at the scene of a crime can justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the allegations against co‑accused affect the bail application of the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste
- assault
- firearm injury
- bail refusal
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.639 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-803 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Jay Prakash Yadav @ Jay Prakash Kumar Son of Yogendra Prasad Singh @
Tindo Yadav R/o Village - Sri Tola, P.S. - Ara Nawada, Dist. - Bhojpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Raghuranjan Son of Ranjan Kumar R/o Village - Sri Tola, P.S. - Ara
Nawada, Dist. - Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Malti Kumari
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special 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 24.01.2026 in A.B.P. No. 19/2026 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Ara Nawada P.S.
Case No. 803/2025, registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3),
190, 126(2) 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 352 and 351(3) of the BNS,
2023, Section 27 of the Arms act as well as Sections 3(2)(v) of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.639 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he along with his brother Rishu and friends Akash
and Ashish were having Golgappa at the bus-stand, when Pawan
called and asked him to come inside the bus-stand, accordingly,
the informant along with his brother and friends went inside the
bus-stand where from before named accused persons including
the appellant were present, further Pawan abused by taking caste
name and said because of the informant is liquor business has
suffered, thereafter Mantu and Rahul fired causing firearm
injury on hand of Ashish, thereafter Bhola, Prakash and Anshu
assaulted him and his brother by an iron rod and Bhola assaulted
him rod causing injury on forehead, thereafter Prakash assaulted
Rishu by rod causing injury on head and eyebrow.
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
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific
allegation of firing causing injury to Ashish is against Mantu
and Rahul and Bhola is alleged to have assaulted the informant
by rod causing injury on forehead and Prakash is alleged to have
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.639 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
assaulted Rishu by rod causing injury on head and eyebrow.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the
appeal and submits that no doubt appellant is not alleged to have
fired or assaulted the injured but then allegation is that Mantu
along with Rahul fired causing firearm injury to Ashish and
thereafter Bhola and Prakash assaulted informant and Rishu
causing injury as recorded hereinabove. It is further submitted
that presence of the appellant and other accused persons at the
place of occurrence emboldened the other accused to commit
the occurrence of firing and assault.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Special P.P, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the appellant.
7. The appeal is hereby rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…