Patna High Court – Orders
Golu Kumar @ Rajnish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 23 July, 2025
Author: Nawneet Kumar Pandey
Bench: Nawneet Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2542 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2017 Thana- SC/ST District- Supaul
======================================================
1. GOLU KUMAR @ RAJNISH KUMAR Son of Santlal Yadav @ Dinesh
Kumar Yadav Resident of Village- Kajara P.S.- and District- Supaul.
2. Vakil Kumar @ Brajesh Kumar Son of jaiprakash Yadav @ Bhushan Yadav
Resident of Village- Kajara P.S. and District- Supaul.
3. Jyotish Kumar @ Jyoti Prakash Son ofJaiprakash Yadav @ Bhushan Yadav
Resident of Village- Kajara P.S. and District- Supaul.
4. Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Kumar Yadav Son of Sitab Yadav @ Dilip Kumar
Pankaj Resident of Village- Kajara P.S. and District- Supaul.
5. Nitish Kumar Son of Sant Lal Yadav @ Dinesh Kumar Yadav Resident of
Village- Kajara P.S. and District- Supaul.
6. Chanchal Kumar Son of Anant Lal Yadav Resident of Village- Kajara P.S.
and District- Supaul.
7. Asha Archana @ Asha Archana Devi Wife of Anant Lal Yadav Resident of
Village- Kajara P.S. and District- Supaul.
8. Rekha Devi Wife of Sant Lal Yadav @ Dinesh Kumar Yadav Resident of
Village- Kajara P.S. and District- Supaul.
9. Mamta Devi @ Mamta Kumari Wife of Sitab Yadav @ Dilip Kumar Pankaj
Resident of Village- Kajara P.S. and District- Supaul.
10. Ratnesh Kumar Son of Anant Lal Yadav Resident of Village- Kajara P.S. and
District- Supaul.
11. Anant lal Yadav Son of Pulkit Yadav Resident of Village- Kajara P.S. and
District- Supaul.
12. Sant Lal yadav @ Dinesh Kumar Yadav Son of Pulkit Yadav Resident of
Village- Kajara P.S. and District- Supaul.
13. Jai Prakash Yadav @ Bhushan Yadav Son of Pulkit Yadav Resident of
Village- Kajara P.S. and District- Supaul.
14. Sitab Yadav @ Dilip Kumar Pankaj Son of Pulkit Yadav Resident of Village-
Kajara P.S. and District- Supaul.
15. Naresh Kumar Singh Son of Bal Govind Singh Resident of Village- Kajara
P.S. and District- Supaul.
16. Sarvesh Kumar Singh @ Chunnu Singh Son of Bal Govind Singh Resident
of Village- Kajara P.S. and District- Supaul.
17. Parvesh Kumar Singh Son of Bal Govind Singh Resident of Village- Kajara
P.S. and District- Supaul.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar
2. Jagiya Devi Wife of Dashrath Tanti Resident of Village-Mohaniyan, P.S-
Supaul, (Lokaha O.P.), District-Supaul.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2542 of 2019(10) dt.23-07-2025
2/6
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Jha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
10 23-07-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well
as the learned APP for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the
order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-1, Supaul, in S.C./ST. Case No. 298 of 2017/125
of 2017 arising out of Supaul SC/ST P.S. Case No. 54/2017, by
which cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 148, 341,
323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) &
(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken against the
appellants.
3. The informant, Jagiya Devi, wife of Dashrath Tanti,
lodged an FIR alleging therein that her husband and brother-in-
law (bhaisur) had purchased a piece of land from late Rajendra
Singh after making payment of the consideration money. The
land in dispute, according to the recitals of the FIR, has been in
the possession of the informant for the last 50 years. The
husband and the brother-in-law of the informant have planted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2542 of 2019(10) dt.23-07-2025
3/6
bamboo clamps thereon. It is alleged that 17 FIR-named
accused persons started cutting the trees and bamboo clamps,
and on protest, they abused the informant and her family
members in filthy words by calling her caste name. They also
assaulted the informant and her family members. Sant Lal
Yadav @ Dinesh Kumar Yadav, appellant no. 12, assaulted her
on the waist resulting into a fracture injury and Sunita Devi also
suffered injuries. Sitab Yadav @ Dilip Kumar Pankaj assaulted
Ganga Tati with an iron rod, who suffered injuries on his head.
The accused persons also assaulted Anita Devi.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
that the informant belong to the Tanti caste which is not a
Scheduled Caste. The resolution dated 02.07.2015, whereby the
State of Bihar included ‘Tanti’ Caste into Scheduled Caste, was
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.
Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar Vs. State of Bihar
(Civil Appeal No. 18802 of 2017). The relevant portions of
paragraph no. 39 is extracted hereinbelow:
” 39. Now comes the question with regard
to protecting those Members of “Tanti-
Tantwa” community who were extended
benefit of Scheduled Castes pursuant to the
Resolution dated 01.07.2015 In the present
case, the action of the State is found to be
mala fide and de hors the constitutional
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2542 of 2019(10) dt.23-07-2025
4/6provisions. The State cannot be pardoned
for the mischief done by it Depriving the
members of the Scheduled Castes covered
by the lists under Article 341 of the
Constitution is a serious issue. Any person
not deserving and not covered by such list if
extended such benefit for deliberate and
mischievous reasons by the State, cannot
take away the benefit of the members of the
Scheduled Castes. Such appointments
would under law on the findings recorded
would be liable to be set aside. However, as
we have found fault with the conduct of the
State and not of any individual member of
the “Tanti- Tantwa” community, we do not
wish to direct that their services may be
terminated or that recovery may be made
for illegal appointments or withdrawal of
other benefits which may have been
extended. We are of the view that all such
posts of the Scheduled Castes reserved
quota which have been extended to the
members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community
appointed subsequent to the Resolution
dated 01.07.2015 be returned to the
Scheduled Castes Quota and all such
members of the “Tanti-Tantwa” community,
who have been extended such benefit may
be accommodated under their original
category of Extremely Backward Classes,
for which the State may take appropriate
measures. […]”
5. The decision in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra),
was relied upon in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Rohit
Nandan, (Civil Appeal No. 14394 of 2024), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has reiterated the same thing and the exclusion
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2542 of 2019(10) dt.23-07-2025
5/6
of the Tanti caste from the list of Extremely Backward Castes
was held illegal. So, these two decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court show that the Tati caste is not in the list of
Scheduled Castes. As such, the provisions of the SC/ST Act are
not attracted against the appellants.
6. Considering the materials collected during course
of the investigation, the investigating authorities submitted final
form against appellant nos. 1 to 6 and appellant no. 10.
Appellant nos. 7 and 11 are teachers and they were in their
respective schools at the time of occurrence, due to this reason,
the investigating authorities submitted final form against them
also. So far as appellant nos. 8 and 9 are concerned, they are the
female members of the family. Their implication was merely a
super addition. The investigating authority submitted final form
against appellant nos. 8 and 9 also.
7. The learned counsel for the informant has
submitted that the accused persons badly assaulted the
informant and her family members. According to the submission
of the learned counsel for the informant, there is no error in the
order of the learned court below taking cognizance against all
the appellants. So far as the plea of alibi taken by some of the
appellants is concerned, that cannot be a ground for quashing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2542 of 2019(10) dt.23-07-2025
6/6
the cognizance order and that should be looked into during trial.
8. As mentioned above, the Tanti is not in the list of
Scheduled Castes, as such, the provisions of the SC/ST Act are
not attracted against any of the appellants. Accordingly, the
cognizance under Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is
concerned, the cognizance in respect of all the appellants is
hereby quashed. So far as the other sections of the IPC are
concerned, the cognizance in respect of appellant nos. 1 to 11 is
quashed, there shall be no interference with rest portion of the
impugned order.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
Nirmal/-
U T