IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4366 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2025 Thana- DOBHI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1. Satyendra Kumar @ Satyendra Yadav S/O Kailash Yadav R/O Village- Aurwa Dauhar, P.S- Dobhi, Distt.- Gaya. 2. Sanoj Kumar @ Sanoj Yadav S/O Kailash Yadav R/O Village- Aurwa Dauhar, P.S- Dobhi, Distt.- Gaya. 3. Manoj Yadav S/O Kailash Yadav R/O Village- Aurwa Dauhar, P.S- Dobhi, Distt.- Gaya. 4. Upendra Kumar @ Upendra Yadav S/O Kailash Yadav R/O Village- Aurwa Dauhar, P.S- Dobhi, Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Mahendra Manjhi S/O Late Kesho Manjhi R/O Village- Pathalkatti, P.S- Sherghati, Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Special P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 17-08-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special P.P. for the State. 2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 10.06.2025 in A.B.P. No. 147 of 2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in connection with Dobhi P.S. Case No. 85 of 2025 registered under Sections Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4366 of 2025(4) dt.17-08-2026 2/4 281, 115, 118(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that notice has been validly served upon the informant but then informant chooses not to appear and contest. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are persons with clean antecedent and informant alleges that on 26.03.2025 at about 7 P.M., when he was returning from Budhani market, after selling hen on a motorcycle when a truck bearing registration no. BR01GA-0497 dashed his motorcycle and dragged the motorcycle up-to 200 ft. on account of which the informant lost his balance and fell from the motorcycle, further a vehicle was coming from behind which ran over his motorcycle. It is next alleged that when the informant went ahead, the named accused persons including the appellants abused him by taking caste name and said that he was saved but next time he will be killed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that though informant alleges that a truck dragged his motorcycle up-to 200 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4366 of 2025(4) dt.17-08-2026 3/4 ft. and he fell but then the informant does not disclose that as to whether he was treated in a hospital or not, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution that as to whether any accident of the nature as alleged even took place. It is further submitted that an agreement for sale was executed in between appellant no.2 and brother of the informant. It is next submitted that appellant no.2 paid an amount of Rs.5,51,000/- to the brother of the informant but then brother of the informant neither executed the sale deed nor returned the money and thereafter the instant false case came to be instituted. It is also submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then the allegation is that informant got dashed by a truck from behind and based on suspicion, it is being alleged that the occurrence was committed at the instance of the appellants. It is next submitted that since the money has not been returned by the brother of the informant to the appellant no.2, hence the appellant no.2 instituted Complaint Case No.782 of 2024, in which cognizance has been taken. It is also submitted that this perhaps explains why informant despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and contest. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4366 of 2025(4) dt.17-08-2026 4/4 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the order impugned is set aside. Let the appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed. amit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T