Patna High Court
Ram Awatar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting bail is set aside and the appellant is entitled to bail.
Summary
Ram Awatar Yadav appealed against the trial court's refusal to grant bail in a case where he was charged under IPC sections 302, 504 and 34 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the alleged murder of a 12‑year‑old girl. The prosecution alleged that Yadav, his son and two others assaulted and strangulated the girl, leading to her death. Yadav contended he was falsely implicated, pointed out the lack of antemortem injuries in the post‑mortem report, and claimed the matter had been compromised between the parties. The State and the respondent opposed bail, acknowledging the compromise. The Patna High Court, after hearing the parties, set aside the lower court’s order, allowed the appeal, and directed that Yadav be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a murder case involving IPC sections 302, 504, 34 and the SC/ST Act pending trial.
- Effect of a compromise between the parties on the grant of bail.
- Whether the absence of charge framing and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 504
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- assault
- SC/ST Act
- compromise
- pre‑trial detention
- Indian Penal Code
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.800 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-424 Year-2023 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Ram Awatar Yadav, Son of Jhinardev Yadav@ Jinardev Yadav, Resident of
Village- Nandana, P.S.- Chainpur, Distt.- Kaimur at Bhabua
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jitendra Ram, Son of Late Vijjan Ram, Resident of Village- Hatta P.S.-
Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Usha Kumari 1, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 31-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
counsel for the respondent and learned Special Public Prosecutor
for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Kaimur at
Bhabua whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection
with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 424 of 2023 under Sections 302, 504
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)
(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
earlier the bail petition of this appellant was rejected by learned
Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 27.06.2024 passed in Cr.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.800 of 2025(5) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
Appeal (SJ) No. 1406 of 2024 with a direction to the learned trial
Court to conclude the trial of the appellant at the earliest. Learned
counsel for the appellant has further submitted that till now charge
has not been framed and petitioner is in custody since 02.01.2024.
4. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
respondent was working in his field with other persons and his 12
years old daughter went to pluck green leaves (sag) at some
distance. At that very time, the appellant along with his son
Gaurav Yadav and two other persons came and started abusing the
respondent’s daughter by calling her caste name. The appellant and
his son Gaurav Yadav assaulted the daughter of the respondent
with lathi-dada and strangulated her with her scarf. The
respondent’s daughter died on the way to the hospital.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this
case. From perusal of the F.I.R., it is clear that there is also
allegation of strangulating her with her scarf but from perusal of
the postmortem report, it transpires that there is no such
antemortem injury on the person of the deceased. It has further
been submitted that the occurrence has taken place on spur of
moment and the weapons which are alleged to be used are lathi
and dada. The nature of allegation is general and omnibus.
Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.800 of 2025(5) dt.31-01-2026
3/3
parties have compromised the case and they have filed the
compromise petition before the trial Court.
6. The appeal for bail is vehemently opposed by learned
Spl. P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent has also admitted that the case
has been compromised between the parties.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed
and the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 passed in connection
with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 424 of 2023 is hereby set aside.
8. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in
connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 424 of 2023 on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional District Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Special Court,
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kaimur at Bhabua.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…