The Patna High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an appellant accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, observing that the dispute appeared to be “purely civil in nature” and the allegations regarding casteist slurs were not shown to have occurred in public view. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh set aside the order of the lower court which had rejected the pre-arrest bail, reaffirming that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not absolute if a prima facie case is not made out.
Case Background
The matter, titled Lal Babu Yadav @ Lal Kishore Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1108 of 2025), arose from a First Information Report (FIR) registered at the Bhojpur SC/ST Police Station (Case No. 25 of 2024).
The prosecution’s case was that the appellant and others had cheated the informant. The complainant alleged that she and her father paid an advance of Rs. 4,50,000 for the purchase of land, with a remaining Rs. 50,000 to be paid at the time of registration. It was alleged that the accused prepared forged documents. When the complainant demanded the return of the money, a co-accused, Ajay Kumar, allegedly issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000 which was dishonored by the bank.
The FIR further alleged that when the informant and her father demanded their money, the accused “hurled casteist slur and threatened to kill them and refused to return their money.”
The appellant approached the High Court after the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Bhojpur, Ara, rejected his prayer for anticipatory bail on January 22, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that his client had been falsely implicated. He submitted that while the complainant alleged giving Rs. 4,50,000 for land purchase, the FIR did not disclose “to whom she has given the said amount” or the “mode of making said payment.”
The defense further contended that there was no material on record to indicate the appellant’s concern with the transaction except for oral allegations. Regarding the charges under the SC/ST Act, the counsel submitted that it was “not clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that said act was done in public view.” Therefore, it was argued that no prima facie case was made out.
Opposing the plea, the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the counsel for Respondent No. 2 (the informant) argued that cognizable offences were made out based on the FIR allegations. However, the Court noted that “they could not dispute the factum of the case as argued on behalf of the appellant.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh first addressed the maintainability of the anticipatory bail plea in light of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which generally bars such relief. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Versus Union of India and Others (2020), the Court observed:
“…aforesaid Section 18 of SC/ST Act does not create absolute bar in granting anticipatory bail and if prima facie offence under the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 is not made out, the anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused…”
On the merits of the specific allegations, the Court found substance in the appellant’s defense. The Justice observed:
“I find that the case is purely civil in nature and it appears that the alleged incident of abusing and threatening by using casteist slur has not taken place in public view. The allegations made in the F.I.R. against the appellant appears to be vague and without relevant details.”
The Court further noted that there was no material on record to presume that justice would be thwarted by granting relief to the appellant.
Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated January 22, 2025. Guided by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), the Court held that the appellant had made out a case for anticipatory bail.
The Court directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within three weeks, the appellant, Lal Babu Yadav, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
