Patna High Court
Golu Goswami @ Saurav KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to extend anticipatory bail to the appellants, dismissing the appeal.
Summary
The appellants, Golu Goswami and Mithun Mandal, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for offences including sections 105 and 3(5) as well as sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(V), following the death of the informant’s son. The informant alleged that the appellants called the victim for work, forced him onto a motorcycle despite his illness, and that the victim later fell and died, with a post‑mortem indicating poisoning. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated, had a clean record, and that taking the victim to the hospital demonstrated lack of culpability. The State and the informant argued that the FIR disclosed sufficient suspicion and that the death required investigation. After hearing both sides, the High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the allegations serious enough to warrant continued custody, and dismissed the appeal. The order upheld the refusal of bail under the SC/ST Act.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under the SC/ST Act when the allegations are based largely on suspicion.
- Whether the facts disclosed in the FIR and post‑mortem report justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 105, 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- scheduled caste
- scheduled tribe
- murder
- suspicion
- bail refusal
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.203 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2024 Thana- Shivnarayanpur District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Golu Goswami @ Saurav Kumar S/O Ajay Goswami R/O Village-
Bishanpur, P.S- Shivnarayanpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
2. Mithun Mandal @ Mithun Kumar S/O Dinesh Mandal R/O Village-
Rampur, P.S- Shivnarayanpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jay Prakash Das S/O Late Mainu Harijan R/O Village- Jaytipur Shailendra,
P.S- Shivnarayanpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar No.6, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
Mr. Ashad, Adv
Md. Soban Ashgar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 30-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Spl.
P.P. for the State, Sri Binay Krishna and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the
refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 7-10-2024 in
A.B.P. No. 2253 of 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III-cum-Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Bhagalpur in
connection with Shivnarayanpur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2024 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the BNS
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.203 of 2025(4) dt.30-03-2026
2/4
as well as Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 11-7-2024 at 6:02 am, his son received a call from
Golu, who asked him to be ready as he is sending someone, further at
7:59 am his son received a call from Mithun who disclosed that he is
standing in front of his home, accordingly his son came out of the
house and said that he is not well hence would not be able to do the
work, but Mithun insisted and made him sit on his motorcycle saying
that the work is less, it is next alleged that at 1:14 pm a call came on
his son’s mobile which was received by his daughter-in-law and the
caller Sanjiv disclosed that his son fell while working and Golu along
with Mithun have taken him to the hospital, accordingly the
informant reached the place of occurrence along with his family
members when appellants fled thinking his son dead, thus alleges
based on suspicion that appellants committed the occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant based on suspicion. It is next submitted that from perusal
of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
appellants and the victim (deceased) were known to each other and
the appellants had called him for performing some work. It is further
submitted that appellants operate a tent house and the deceased used
to work as a labour with the appellants and on the date of occurrence
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.203 of 2025(4) dt.30-03-2026
3/4
also in connection with some work, the appellants had called the
deceased for performing some work. It is also submitted that it is not
the case of the informant that it were the appellants who committed
the occurrence leading to death of the victim rather the entire
allegation hinges around suspicion. It is also submitted that Sanjiv
called on the mobile of the deceased which was with his wife and
disclosed that victim fell while working and appellants have taken
him to the hospital, which amply demonstrates that if appellants were
involved in the occurrence then they would not have taken the victim
to the hospital for treatment.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant opposes the appeal and submits that no doubt informant is
not an eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire allegation hinges
around suspicion, but then from perusal of the allegation as alleged in
the FIR, it would manifest that Golu called the victim and thereafter
Mithun came to pick him up and the victim disclosed to Mithun that
he was not feeling well and hence would not be in a position to
perform the work, but still Mithun insisted and made the victim sit on
his motorcycle and thereafter the occurrence is alleged to have taken
place. It is also submitted that in the FIR, it is alleged that Sanjiv
called and informed the wife of the victim that the victim fell while
working and thus was taken to the hospital by the appellants, but then
from perusal of the post-mortem report, it would manifest that the
victim did not suffer any external injury and the FSL report records
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.203 of 2025(4) dt.30-03-2026
4/4
that the victim had consumed poison, i.e., phosphate. It is next
submitted that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that son
of the informant died and there is allegation against the appellants of
committing the occurrence, as such the case requires to be
investigated.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State also concurs with the
submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
appellants.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…