Facts
The appellant challenged an order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Supaul, which refused his prayer for anticipatory bail
Source reference: para. 2The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused took the informant’s husband to a disputed land where he was shot following a demand to return land; the victim later succumbed to injuries
Source reference: para. 3, 5The appellant contended that the case arose from a land dispute, he had no criminal antecedents, and the specific allegation of firing was directed at co-accused Mukesh Yadav and Kishore Sardar rather than himself
Source reference: para. 4Issues
1. Whether a prima facie case exists against the appellant under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to bar the grant of anticipatory bail
Source reference: para. 72. Whether the appellant is entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the nature of allegations and the existing land dispute
Source reference: para. 7Law Applied
Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding appeals against bail orders
Source reference: para. 2Sections 103(1) (Murder) and 3(5) (Common Intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act
Source reference: para. 2The procedural requirements for bail were governed by Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
Source reference: para. 7Reasoning
The court observed that the allegations against the appellant were vague and doubtful in nature
Source reference: para. 7It noted that the specific overt act of firing was attributed to other co-accused persons, not the appellant
Source reference: para. 4Furthermore, the court found an absence of material to establish a prima facie case specifically under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, which often acts as a statutory bar to anticipatory bail
Source reference: para. 7The court took into account the defense's argument regarding the delay in lodging the FIR and the underlying land dispute as a potential motive for false implication
Source reference: para. 4Holding
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 and allowed the appeal
The court directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within eight weeks, the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including presence during trial and cooperation with the proceedings
Source reference: para. 7Original Court PDF
Raman YadavvsThe State Of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in