Patna High Court – Orders
Saroj Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3529 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2024 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Saroj Devi wife of Dev Lal Yadav Village- Hariyadag Ps- Mohanpur Dist-
Gaya
2. Gita Devi wife of Upendra yadav Village- Hariyadag Ps- Mohanpur Dist-
Gaya
3. Manju Devi wife of Birendra yadav Village- Hariyadag Ps- Mohanpur Dist-
Gaya
4. Gauriya Devi wife of Surendra Yadav Village- Hariyadag Ps- Mohanpur
Dist- Gaya
5. Kabutari Devi wife of Rohan Yadav Village- Hariyadag Ps- Mohanpur Dist-
Gaya
6. Muneshwar yadav @ Surendra yadav @ Muneshar yadav son of Pitambar
Yadav Village- Hariyadag Ps- Mohanpur Dist- Gaya
7. Rohan Yadav son of Pitambar yadav Village- Hariyadag Ps- Mohanpur Dist-
Gaya
8. Birendra Yadav son of Pitambar Yadav Village- Hariyadag Ps- Mohanpur
Dist- Gaya
9. Dev Lal Yadav Son of Pitambar Yadav Village- Hariyadag Ps- Mohanpur
Dist- Gaya
10. Upendra Yadav @ Upendra Kumar son of Pitambar yadav Village-
Hariyadag Ps- Mohanpur Dist- Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Jaliya Devi wife of Babu Lal Manjhi Village- Mathurapur Ps- Mohanpur
Dist- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 05-08-2025
Heard Mr. Shivendra Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the State.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3529 of 2024(5) dt.05-08-2025
2/6
2. Despite of valid service of notice upon Respondent
No. 2, no one appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
during the pendency of the present anticipatory bail petition, the
appellant nos. 6 to 9 namely, Muneshwar Yadav @ Surendra
Yadav, Rohan Yadav, Birendra Yadav and Dev Lal Yadav have
been arrested/surrendered and hence learned counsel for the
appellants seeks permission to withdraw the present anticipatory
bail petition with respect to appellant nos. 6 to 9 namely,
Muneshwar Yadav @ Surendra Yadav, Rohan Yadav, Birendra
Yadav and Dev Lal Yadav as having become infructuous.
4. Permission is accorded.
5. The anticipatory bail petition with respect to
appellant nos. 6 to 9 namely, Muneshwar Yadav @ Surendra
Yadav, Rohan Yadav, Birendra Yadav and Dev Lal Yadav is
dismissed as withdrawn.
6. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, against refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail
by order dated 25.05.2024 in A.B.P. No. 161 of 2024 passed by
the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in connection
with Barachatti (Mohanpur) P.S. Case No. 130 of 2024, F.I.R.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3529 of 2024(5) dt.05-08-2025
3/6
dated 27.02.2024, registered under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323,
307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (r)(s)
and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
7. Allegation against the appellants is of assaulting,
outrage the modesty of the informant and abusing to the victim
by her caste name.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants (except
appellants nos. 6 to 9) submits that the appellants have clean
antecedents and they have been falsely implicated in the present
case. In fact, the appellant nos. 1 to 5 is not named in the F.I.R.
and it is mentioned in the F.I.R. the wife of named accused
persons. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. itself
that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act or
abusing attributed against these appellants rather there is general
and omnibus allegation against the accused persons including
these appellants. In fact, it appears from the F.I.R. itself that the
informant and family members have constructed the hut in land
which was belonged to the appellants and due to this reason, the
present occurrence had taken place which suggests that due to
land dispute the present occurrence has taken place and in view
of the judgment in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of
Uttarakhand & Anr., reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3529 of 2024(5) dt.05-08-2025
4/6
paragraph-18 which reads as follows:-
“18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not
established merely on the fact that the
informant is a member of Scheduled Caste
unless there is an intention to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to
such caste. In the present case, the parties are
litigating over possession of the land. The
allegation of hurling of abuses is against a
person who claims title over the property. If
such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste,
the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is
not made out.
9. Paragraph-18 of the aforesaid judgment and in the
background of the land dispute, no case is made out under
SC/ST Act against the appellants.
10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State,
on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the appellants (except appellant nos. 6 to 9).
11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, let the appellants (except appellant nos. 6 to 9),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3529 of 2024(5) dt.05-08-2025
5/6
above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
court below within a period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST, Gaya in connection
with Barachatti (Mohanpur) P.S. Case No. 130 of 2024, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure/ Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 along
with other following conditions :-
(1) Appellants (except appellant nos. 6 to 9) shall co-
operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and
every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically
present as directed by the Court and on their absence on two
consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds
shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the appellants (except appellant nos. 6 to 9)
tamper with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the
prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellants (except
appellant nos. 6 to 9) and in case at any stage, it is found that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3529 of 2024(5) dt.05-08-2025
6/6
appellants (except appellant nos. 6 to 9) have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the appellants (except appellant nos.
6 to 9). However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the
above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in
the name of verification.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
25.05.2024 is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U