IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2581 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-321 Year-2014 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya ====================================================== 1. Anil Yadav S/O Shivnarayan Yadav @ Shivan Yadav R/O Vill.- Mastapura, P.S.- Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya 2. Hari Yadav S/O Chhatri Yadav R/O Vill.- Mastapura, P.S.- Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya 3. Lallu Yadav @ Lallu Kumar S/O Chhatri Yadav R/O Vill.- Mastapura, P.S.- Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya 4. Barjesh Kumar S/O Ramajatan Yadav @ Jatan Yadav R/O Vill.- Mastapura, P.S.- Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya 5. Puna Yadav S/O Amo Yadav @ Ambika Yadav R/O Vill.- Mastapura, P.S.- Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya 6. Raju Kumar S/O Amo Yadav @ Ambika Yadav R/O Vill.- Mastapura, P.S.- Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya 7. Navin Yadav @ Navin Kumar S/O Gobind Yadav R/O Vill.- Mastapura, P.S.- Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya 8. Dilip Yadav S/O Kesar Yadav @ Keshwar Yadav R/O Vill.- Mastapura, P.S.- Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar Patna 2. Shambhu Kumar S/O Late Kuldeep Paswan R/O Vill.- Mastapura, P.S.- Bodhgaya, Dist.- Gaya ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. V. R. Choudhary, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 04-06-2026 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Spl. PP for the State and the respondent no. 2 is represented through Mr. V. R. Choudhary, learned Advocate through virtual mode. 2. The instant appeal is preferred on behalf of the eight appellants against the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 2581 of 2025(4) dt.04-06-2026 2/3 the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in A.B.P. No. 94/2025 arising out of Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 321 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 379 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellants stood rejected. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that even if the allegation taken to be true for the sake of argument, no case has made out much less under the penal provision of the SC/ST Act. It has not been disclosed that the occurrence has taken place only on account of the fact that the informant belongs to a member of the vulnerable section of the society; to support the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.; (2020) 10 SCC 710”. 4. On the other hand, learned Spl. PP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the F.I.R. came to be instituted in the year 2014 and after a decade or more, the appellants have approached the Court and for this reason alone, the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 2581 of 2025(4) dt.04-06-2026 3/3 the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the factum of delay in approaching the Court for ventilating their grievances, this Court is not exceeded to the prayer for the appellants, and accordingly, do not find any reason occasioned to interfere in the order dated 05.04.2025. However, it is made clear that if the appellants surrender and seeks regular bail, their prayer for regular bail shall be considered without being prejudice by the order of this Court and in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Hitesh Verma Case (Supra)”. 6. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands rejected. sadique/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T