Patna High Court
Ramashray Yadav @ Hridyanandan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The appeals are allowed and the orders rejecting anticipatory bail are set aside, granting bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The appellants, Ramashray Yadav and his son Mukesh Kumar, were charged under IPC sections 420, 467, 468/34, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly taking money from a Scheduled Caste informant, promising a government job, issuing a forged appointment letter and issuing a bounced cheque, and for allegedly abusing the informant with caste slurs. The trial court rejected their anticipatory bail applications. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined the lack of documentary evidence of any payment, held that the alleged contract was immoral and not enforceable, noted that the offence under Section 138 NI Act is bailable, and found that the caste‑abuse allegation did not occur in a public place as required under the SC/ST Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the lower court orders, and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Sections 438 and 482 of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and related offences.
- Whether the alleged caste‑based abuse satisfies the public‑place requirement of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is bailable.
- Whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 14A(2), 156(3), 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 420, 467, 468
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- cheque bounce
- fraud
- caste abuse
- bailable offence
- CrPC
- IPC
- Negotiable Instruments Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.818 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-493 Year-2022 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Ramashray Yadav @ Hridyanandan Singh Son of Ram Bachan Singh Village
-Leura , PS -Sasaram (M) , Dist- Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Uma Shankar Ram Son of Sri Mandan Mohan Ram Village- karigaon,
Pusauli, Ps- Mohania, Dist- Kaimur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1338 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-493 Year-2022 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar Son of Ramashray Yadav @ Hridyanandan Singh Village-
Leruan , PS -Sasaram , Dist -Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Uma Shankar Ram Son of Sri Madan Mohan Ram Village -Karigaon ,
Pusauli , PS- Mohania , Dist -Kaimur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 818 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajani Kant Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Syed Ashfaque Ahmad
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1338 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajani Kant Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
7 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for Respondent No. 2 as well as learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. Since both these appeals arise out of Complaint
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.818 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
2/6
Case No. 23 of 2022, filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua, which was forwarded on
22.08.2022 under Section 156(3) CrPC for being registered,
came to be registered as Mohaniya P.S. Case No. 493 of 2022,
on 07.09.2022 at 04:00 PM, hence, they are being heard
together and are being disposed of by a common order.
3. These appeals under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 are directed against the orders dated
28.01.2025 and 21.02.2025 passed by learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, 1st-cum- Special Judge, Kaimur at
Bhabua, in A.B.P. No. 1890 of 2024, A.B.P. No. 336 of 2025,
respectively, in connection with Mohaniya P.S. Case No. 493 of
2022, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 of the I.P.C.,
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act read with Sections 3(1)(r) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
of the appellants has been rejected.
4. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that he is an unemployed literate person and belongs to
the Scheduled Caste community and the appellant of Cr. Appeal
(SJ) No. 1338 of 2025, namely, Mukesh Kumar, is son of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.818 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
3/6
appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 818 of 2025, namely,
Ramashray Yadav @ Hridyanandan Singh, was known to him
from before and he had taken rupees one lakh for some urgent
work on 25.06.2021 and 26.06.2021 with an assurance that the
same will be returned to him within one month, however, the
said amount was not returned, whereas Ramashray Yadav @
Hridyanandan Singh, allured him for getting a job for him in his
R.P.F. Department and took his educational certificates,
photograph and Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, after two months, the
informant was told that the recruitment has been cancelled and
on the pretext of his high links in the Patna Secretariat,
Ramashray Yadav @ Hridyanandan Singh assured that he will
get the informant recruited there on a Class IV post. It is alleged
that thereafter, Ramashray Yadav @ Hridyanandan Singh sent
an appointment letter to the informant through one Harendra
Kumar and asked him to join in the Rural Works Department at
Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna, by 24.09.2021, when the
informant went to join, he came to learn that the said
appointment letter was forged one and the informant asked the
accused persons to return his total amount. Thereafter, it is
alleged, that on 24.01.2022, Mukesh Kumar, handed over a
cheque of his Kotak Mahindra Bank Account No. 4045303362
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.818 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
4/6
for an amount of rupees one lakh, however, when the informant
produced the said cheque for clearance at his Bank of Baroda
Account at Barhuli Branch, the same was dishonored due to
insufficient balance. Thereafter, it is alleged, the informant
served legal notice to the accused persons, but there was no
response to it, rather, on 30.01.2022, Mukesh Kumar, came on a
motorcycle with one person of criminal background to his house
and abused him by taking caste name and threatened that how
come he dared to send a legal notice to him, he will ruin the
whole family, somehow, on the intervention of the witnesses,
the informant could be able to save his life.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been
implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that the
appellants have never taken any amount from the informant and
hence the question of payment/non-payment of the said amount
does not arise. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the appellants have never lured the informant
promising a government job. It has also been submitted that
even accepting the allegation to be true although the appellants
denied the same, it would apparently be a case that the
informant has entered into an immoral contract, which is not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.818 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
5/6
enforceable in the eye of law, and the offence with respect to
Section 138 of the N.I. Act is bailable in nature. As regards
allegation of abuse with the caste name attracting the rigours of
SC & ST Act is concerned, it is not committed in a public place
nor any person has been named to be present at the place of
occurrence when the alleged offence of abuse was being
committed. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside and the
appellants may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State as
well as learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the appellants and submitted that the appellants have lured the
informant to provide a government job and the appellant
Mukesh Kumar gave a cheque, which ultimately bounced.
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that there is no documentary evidence to
suggest that any money was given to the appellants and the
informant has entered into an immoral contract and the offences
with respect to Section 138 of the N.I. Act being bailable in
nature and the allegation of abuse by caste name does not
appear to be within public view, let the above named appellants
in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of six
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.818 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
6/6
weeks be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge, 1st-cum- Special Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua,
in connection with Mohaniya P.S. Case No. 493 of 2022,
subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S/Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the
impugned orders dated 28.01.2025 and 21.02.2025 rejecting the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants are, hereby,
set aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
Checking your session…