Satya Narayan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2630 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2020 Thana- SC/ST District- Araria ====================================================== 1.
Satya Narayan Yadav Son Of Late Dhutharu Yadav Resident Of VillageMadhura West, Ward No. 3, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria. 2.
Chandra Shekhar Yadav Son Of Satya Narayan Yadav Resident Of VillageMadhura West, Ward No. 3, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria. 3.
Digambar Yadav @ Digambar Prasad Yadav Son Of Satya Narayan Yadav Resident Of Village- Madhura West, Ward No. 3, P.S.- Narpatganj, DistrictAraria. 4.
Vishambhar Yadav Son Of Satya Narayan Yadav Resident Of VillageMadhura West, Ward No. 3, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria. ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Mrigendra Kumar For the Respondent/s :
Mrs. Usha Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 25-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an appeal under section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter in short referred to as the 'SC/ST Act') against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated 08.03.2021, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Araria in connection with Special (SC/ST) Case No. 212 of 2020 arising out of Araria (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2020, registered under Sections 354, 504/34 of the IPC and Sections 3(i) (r) (S) of SC/ST Act.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2630 of 2021(2) dt.25-04-2022 2/2 appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. He submits that the cognizance has been taken by the learned court below against the appellants. He further submits that the appellants have no criminal antecedent as stated in para3 of this appeal. Learned Spl.P.P. for the State submits that if cognizance has been taken against the appellants in this case, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bachu Das vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 471. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T