Kundan Yadav @ Kundan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 21 August, 2025

Patna High Court – Orders

Kundan Yadav @ Kundan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 21 August, 2025

Author: Prabhat Kumar Singh

Bench: Prabhat Kumar Singh

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.120 of 2024
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2023 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Kundan Yadav @ Kundan KUmar Son of Laxman Yadav @ Lakman Ray R/o
                 vill - Chainpur, P.S. - Manjhi, Distt. - Saran

                                                                                   ... ... Appellant/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Lal Babu Chaudhary Son of Late Tufani Chaudhary R/o vill - Chauba
                 Asthan, P.S. - Manjhi, Dist. - Saran

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant       :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.PP
                 For the Informant       :        Mr. Pratyush Pratap Singh, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   21-08-2025

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant,

learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order

dated 11.10.2023 passed in a case registered for the offence

punishable under Sections 341, 323, 385, 504, 506 and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has

been rejected.

3. As per prosecution case, on the alleged date and

time of occurrence, all the F.I.R. named accused persons,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.120 of 2024(4) dt.21-08-2025
2/3

including this appellant, abused informant by caste name and

assaulted him as a result of which informant sustained grievous

injuries.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant that appellant is quite innocent and has

committed no offence. From bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is

apparent that on account of land dispute between the parties,

simple maar-peet took place. Allegation of assault is general

and omnibus. It is further submitted that the present F.I.R. has

been lodged after inordinate delay of 15 days and there is no

plausible explanation for the same. It is not the case of the

prosecution that any member of public was present at the place

of occurrence and as such, no case under the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out

against the appellant.

5. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing on

behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the informant have vehemently opposed this appeal and

submitted that appellant is named in the F.I.R. with specific

accusation that he, along with other F.I.R. named accused

persons, abused informant by caste name and assaulted him as a

result of which he sustained grievous injuries. It is further
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.120 of 2024(4) dt.21-08-2025
3/3

submitted that just after 8 days of lodging of the present F.I.R.,

this appellant along with others again abused informant by caste

name and assaulted him by means of rod, fist and knife as a

result of which he against sustained grievous injuries for which

Manjhi P.S. Case No. 212 of 2023 was registered against the

appellant and others and as such, if the appellant is granted the

privilege of anticipatory bail, there is every possibility that he

will tamper with the evidence. Appellant has got two criminal

antecedents.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, nature of injuries sustained by the injured, criminal

antecedents and conduct of the appellant, the prayer for grant of

anticipatory bail to the appellant is rejected and this appeal is

dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T