Sahdev Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2110 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1924 of 2021
          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-444 Year-2020 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada
     ======================================================

1. Sahdev Yadav Son of Daso Yadav Resident of Village - Chilihiya Bigha, P.S.

- Kadirganj, District - Nawada.

2. Awdhesh Yadav @ Ashish Kumar Son of Sahdev Yadav Resident of Village

- Chilihiya Bigha, P.S. - Kadirganj, District - Nawada.

3. Shailesh [email protected] Shailesh Kumar Son of Sahdev Yadav Resident of Village

- Chilihiya Bigha, P.S. - Kadirganj, District - Nawada.

4. Ajay Yadav @ Chhotu Yadav Son of Sri Vallabh Yadav Resident of Village -

Chilihiya Bigha, P.S. - Kadirganj, District - Nawada.

5. Dhamo Yadav @ Dharmendra Kumar Son of Satyendra Yadav Resident of Village - Chilihiya Bigha, P.S. - Kadirganj, District - Nawada.

... ... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Appellant/s    :        Mr. Ansul, Adv.
     For the Respondent/s   :        Ms. Usha Kumari, Spl. P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 26-05-2021

Heard Mr. Ansul, learned counsel for the appellants

and Ms. Usha Kumari, learned Spl. P.P. for the State via video

conferencing.

2. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short „the Act‟) has been preferred by

the appellants challenging the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by

the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Nawada in A.B.P.

No. 176 of 2021, whereby he has rejected their application for

grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Kadirganj P.S. Case

No. 444 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 341, 323, 325, 385, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) of the Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on

19.05.2020 at 03:30 PM, the appellants being variously armed

with lathi, danda and iron rod came on two motorcycles. They

asked for toddy from the informant. When the informant refused

to oblige them, the appellants started hurling abuses by taking

his caste name "Pasi". They further threatened him to serve

them toddy and asked for a ransom of Rs. 1.50 lacs. When he

forbade them to abuse, the appellants assaulted him, his wife

and his sons Shankar Chaudhary and Valmiki Kumar. The

informant and others sustained injuries.

4. Mr. Ansul, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and they

have been implicated in the case due to personal vengeance. The

allegations made against them are vague, general and omnibus.

He contended that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. He

further contended that as per the prosecution case, the appellants

abused the informant by taking his caste name at his house,

which was certainly not within the public view.

5. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing

for the State submitted that the allegations made against the

appellants are serious. It is not only specifically alleged that the

appellants abused the informant and his family members by

taking their caste name, they also demanded ransom and

assaulted four persons mercilessly.

6. Having heard the parties and perused the

materials on record, I am of the opinion that the offences alleged

under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are clearly attracted in the

present case. Apart from that, the allegations made in the FIR

are very serious. The appellants have not only abused the

informant and others by taking their caste name but they also

mercilessly assaulted them and demanded ransom.

7. In view of the nature of allegations made in the

FIR, I do not find any fault with the order passed by the court

below whereby the application for pre-arrest bail of the

appellant has been rejected. The appeal lacks merit.

8. It is dismissed, accordingly.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) rohit/-

AFR/NAFR            NAFR
CAV DATE            NA
Uploading Date      30-05-2021
Transmission Date   30-05-2021