Patna High Court
Bali Yadav @ Rambali YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal was disposed with a direction for the appellants to surrender before the trial court, effectively denying anticipatory bail.
Summary
The appellants, six Yadavs, were charged under several IPC sections and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for an alleged assault, caste abuse, robbery and threats that occurred on 27 October 2023. The trial court rejected their anticipatory bail application. In appeal, the appellants argued that the FIR implicated a person named Sudhir, not them, that the police investigation exonerated them, and that no specific allegation of assault was made against several of them. The Special Public Prosecutor and the informant contended that cognizance had been taken, a prima facie case existed and Section 18 of the SC/ST Act barred anticipatory bail. The Patna High Court, after condoning a 93‑day delay, was inclined to grant anticipatory bail but held that because cognizance had been taken, the appeal was disposed with a direction for the appellants to surrender before the trial court on 1 May 2026, which will then decide the matter.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellants when cognizance has been taken under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail in the present facts.
- Whether the police’s final exonerating report can defeat the trial court’s cognizance and denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 379, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 18, 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- cognizance
- Section 18
- police exoneration
- IPC offences
- scheduled caste atrocities
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.681 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-530 Year-2023 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Bali Yadav @ Rambali Yadav S/o Late Kailash Yadav R/o Village - Dumra
P.s- Chandauti , District -Gaya jii
2. Balo Yadav S/o Late Kailash Yadav R/o Village - Dumra P.s- Chandauti ,
District -Gaya jii
3. Lal Babu Yadav S/o Late Kailash Yadav R/o Village - Dumra P.s-
Chandauti , District -Gaya jii
4. Sujeet Yadav S/o Yamuna Yadav R/o Village - Dumra P.s- Chandauti ,
District -Gaya jii
5. Arjun Yadav S/o Ram Bilash Yadav R/o Village - Dumra P.s- Chandauti ,
District -Gaya jii
6. Mantu Yadav @ Mantu Kumar S/o Arjun Yadav R/o Village - Dumra P.s-
Chandauti , District -Gaya jii
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bipin Kumar S/o Binod Chaudhary R/o Village - Dumra P.s- Chandauti ,
District -Gaya jii
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Brijmohan Das
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
Mr.Ritesh Kumar
Mr.Narain Singh
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-04-2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The delay of 93 days in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
3. The appellants have challenged the order dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.681 of 2026(3) dt.23-04-2026
2/4
31.07.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Gaya in connection with ABP No.201 of 2025
arising out of Chandauti P. S. Case No.530 of 2023, instituted
for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504, 506, 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, 1989, whereby their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
has been rejected.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellant nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 have
antecedent of one case and appellant nos.3 and 4 are persons
with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on
27.10.2023 at 3.30 P.M., he was going to his village from Gaya
when accused persons intercepted him and Sudhir abused him
by taking caste name and gave orders to kill, thereafter Sudhir
assaulted him by lathi on ribs, on alarm his villagers came when
Sudhir assaulted Binod Chaudhary by rod on his head causing
injury on head, thereafter, Mantu assaulted Akash by lathi
causing injury near his ear, while Arjun snatched Rs.2,000/-
from his pocket and Balo fired and threatened. Further, the
injured were brought to the hospital.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.681 of 2026(3) dt.23-04-2026
3/4
appellants have 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 there is
allegation against Sudhir, but Sudhir is not the appellant in the
instant appeal and allegation of abuse is general and omnibus in
nature. It is further submitted that no specific allegation of
assault is alleged against appellant nos.1, 3 and 4 though against
appellant no.2, it is alleged that he fired, but then no one was
injured nor the case has been instituted under the Arms Act. It is
next submitted that allegation against the appellant no.5 Arjun
Yadav is ornamental i.e. of snatching Rs.2,000/- and Mantu is
alleged to have assaulted Akash by lathi. It is further submitted
that police after threadbare investigation came to a considered
conclusion that appellants are innocent and thus submitted final
form, but the learned Trial Court differing with the police report
in a mechanical manner took cognizance. It is thus submitted
that one investigating agency after threadbare investigation
came to a considered conclusion that appellants are innocent
whether it would be prudent for the Court to send the appellants
to jail based on an order of cognizance which came to be taken
based on the same police report which had exonerated the
appellants of the allegations.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.681 of 2026(3) dt.23-04-2026
4/4
6. The learned Special P.P. as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the appeal
and submits that since cognizance has been taken, as such,
prima facie case is made out, hence Section 18 of the SC/ST
(POA) Act would apply.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court was inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail
to the appellants, but since cognizance has been taken, as such,
the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellants to
surrender before the learned trial Court on 01.05.2026, if the
appellants surrender on 01.05.2026, the learned trial Court shall
consider and dispose of the same on the same day keeping in
mind the fact that the police after investigation submitted final
form exonerating of the allegations as alleged in the FIR.
8. The appeal stands disposed off with the aforesaid
direction.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…