IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1847 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Madhubani ====================================================== Anand Kumar Yadav Son of Sita Ram Yadav vill-Khajauli , P.S.- Khajauli, Dist- Madhubani ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ashok Kumar Ram Modhri Ram vill- khajauli, P.S.- Khajauli ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumari Pallavi, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Although the notice has been validly served upon respondent No.2, there is no representation on his behalf. 2. This appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been directed against the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by learned ADJ-1st-cum- Special Judge SC/ST Act, Madhubani, in A.B.P. No. 492 of 2025 in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025, registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 126, 117, 303(2), 76, 329(3), 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1847 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026 2/4 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 26.012025 at about 11:00 P.M., the appellant along with other co-accused persons, namely, Govind Kumar Yadav, Indal Yadav, Prahlad Yadav, Munna Yadav, Manish Kumar, Sonu Yadav, Hari Yadav, Bhogendra Yadav and Manoj Yadav entered the house of the informant and started assaulting him repeatedly and abusing him by taking his caste name. On being rescued by Mamta Devi (wife of the informant) and America Devi (Mother of the informant), Anand Kumar (appellant) outraged the modesty of the informant’s wife by tearing her cloth and also beating the mother of the informant due to which she got injury in her waist bone. It is further alleged that the co-accused Govind Yadav snatched the mangalsutra and nose ring from Mamta Devi. On hulla, the commotion started and everyone entered the house of one Anita Devi and started misbehaving with her family member and they also broke the asbestos house. Further, the informant was taken to Sadar Hospital, Madhubani, for treatment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant bears clean antecedent and is Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1847 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026 3/4 innocent. Learned counsel further submits that there is an unexplained delay of 23 days in lodging the present FIR. No injury report has been brought on record to substantiate the alleged injuries. From bare perusal of the FIR it would evident that there is no specific allegation or any overt act alleged against the appellant. Moreover, co-accused persons, namely, Hari Yadav, Manish Kumar Yadav, Indal Yadav, Manoj Yadav and Govind Kumar Yadav have already been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1696 of 2025 dated 25.11.2025 and the case of the appellant is similar to that of the aforesaid co- accused. As regards allegation of abuse with the caste name attracting the rigours of SC & ST Act is concerned, it is not committed in a public place nor any person has been named to be present at the place of occurrence when the alleged offence of abuse was being committed. He further submits that no case, as alleged in the F.I.R, attracting rigours of SC & ST Act, is made out against the appellant. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1847 of 2025(3) dt.13-02-2026 4/4 to the appellant. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the appellant bears clean antecedent coupled with the fact that there is an unexplained delay of 23 days in lodging the FIR and the fact that the co- accused persons, having more or less similar allegations, have already been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court, let the above named appellant in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ADJ-1st-cum- Special Judge SC/ST Act, Madhubani, in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S/Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 rejecting the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant is, hereby, set aside. Jyoti/- (Praveen Kumar, J) U T