IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3706 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2025 Thana- SINDHUGAR District- Gaya ====================================================== 1. Binod Yadav Son of Late Prasadi Yadav R/o Village - Banda Tola, P.S. - Sindhugarh(Mohanpur), District -Gaya. 2. Bindeshwar Yadav Son of Late Prasadi Yadav R/o Village - Banda Tola, P.S. - Sindhugarh(Mohanpur), District -Gaya. 3. Sajeet Yadav Son of Late Prasadi Yadav R/o Village - Banda Tola, P.S. - Sindhugarh(Mohanpur), District -Gaya. ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar Bihar 2. Manti Devi Wife of Jag Bahadur Turiya R/o Village - Bandotola, P.S. - Sindhugarh(Mohanpur), Dist. - Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Anand Kishore Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna For the Informant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 12-03-2026 Heard the parties. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gaya in ABP No. 1590 of 2025 in connection with Sindhugarh P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 76, 351(2) and (3), 329(4), 352, 3(5) of the BNS and under section 3 (2) (s), 3(i)(r)(s)(w) of S.C/S.T. (POA) Act by which anticipatory bail filed by the appellants has been rejected. 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant has Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3706 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026 2/3 alleged that the accused persons were constructing house on the land of the complainant by demolishing the old structure and when she protested, she was abused by the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out in this case as the occurrence has taken place because of the land dispute and therefore the application of the anticipatory bail is maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the State and the informant has opposed the prayer of the appellant. 6. From the reading of the entire FIR it does not appear that offence has been committed against the informant on the ground that she is a member of SC/ST community and primarily, it appears that for a dispute over land, which has earlier been sold by the Devar of the complaint to the appellant/s, the occurrence has taken place and therefore, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is held to be maintainable. 7. Considering the facts of the case and the rival submissions of the parties, this appeal is allowed and accordingly, the order dated 23.06.2025, is hereby set aside. 8. Let the appellants, in the event of their arrest or Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3706 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026 3/3 surrender within four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge-SC/ST Act, Gaya/concerned Court below in in connection with Sindhugarh P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the BNSS. Vikas/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U