Patna High Court
Deepak Kumar Goswami @ Deepak GoswamiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the alleged offence was not demonstrably committed in public view and the appellants' clean antecedent and other circumstances warranted bail.
Summary
The appellants, Deepak and Murari Goswami, were charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC provisions for allegedly abusing, assaulting, and stealing jewellery from the informant Renu Devi on 18 March 2024. The FIR was lodged sixteen days after the incident and no injury report was produced. The appellants sought anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, arguing that the alleged abuse did not occur in public view and that they have a clean antecedent. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail, contending that the incident was in public view because it occurred when the informant de‑boarded a bus. The High Court, after considering the delay, lack of injury report, and the clean antecedent, held that the offence was not clearly a public‑view offence and that bail could be granted subject to conditions. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when the alleged offence is not proved to have been committed in public view.
- Whether the sixteen‑day delay in filing the FIR and the absence of an injury report justify denial of bail.
- Whether the alleged acts fall within the ambit of IPC Sections 354 and 379, thereby affecting bail considerations.
- Whether the appellants' clean antecedent is a relevant factor in granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 379, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- anticipatory bail
- public view
- delay in FIR
- clean antecedent
- IPC Section 354
- IPC Section 379
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2257 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Deepak Kumar Goswami @ Deepak Goswami S/o Patel Goswami @
Munna Goswami R/o vill and Post - Baraon, P.S. - Nokha, Distt.- Rohtas
2. Murari Goswami @ Murari Gosai S/o Kameshwar Gosai @ Kameshwar
Goswami R/o vill and Post - Baraon, P.S. - Nokha, Distt.- Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Renu Devi W/o Rajesh Kumar R/o vill and Post - Ropahatha, P.S. -
Nokha, Distt. - Rohtas
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
and also learned counsel for the respondent No2.
2. This appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been directed against the order
dated 03.05.2025 passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge- 17 -cum- Special Court, SC/ST (POA) Act,
Sasaram in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 27 of 2024
registered under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379, 504, 506/34 of
the Indian and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2257 of 2025(4) dt.13-02-2026
2/4
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant,
Renu Devi alleged that on 18.03.2024 at about 4:00 P.M in
evening while she was coming with her husband, appellants
along with three others came there and started abusing
them by their caste name. Upon protest being made, they
started assaulting them with fists and slaps. They also
caught hold the hair of the informant and thrashed her down
and meanwhile, appellant no.2, Murari Goswami snatched
her Mangal sutra and appellant No.2 Dipak Goswami
snatched her gold earring.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the appellants, who are of clean antecedent, are
innocent and have not committed any offence. He submits
that there is delay of sixteen days in lodging the present F.I.R.
and occurrence does not appear to have been committed in a
public view as it has not been alleged who were the persons
present at the place when the alleged offence of abuse was
committed even though it is alleged that while the informant
de-boarded from the bus alleged abuse was done. Lastly,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2257 of 2025(4) dt.13-02-2026
3/4
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no injury
report is available on record to substantiate the allegation of
assault.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for respondent No.2 have vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
appellants. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits
that since the informant has alleged that she was de-boarded
from the bus when the occurrence took place, hence, the
offence of abuse can be said to be committed in a public view
making out a under SC/ST Act.
6. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case and the fact that the alleged
offence of abuse does not appear to be within a public view
and the ingredients of Sections 354 and 379 I.P.C. does not
appear to be probable in view of the fact that there is delay
of 16 days in lodging the F.I.R., the appellants bear clean
antecedent, let the above named appellants in the event of
their arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2257 of 2025(4) dt.13-02-2026
4/4
Sessions Judge-17 -cum- Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act,
Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 27 of
2024 subject to the conditions laid down under Section
482(2) of the B.N.S.S/Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 03.05.2025 rejecting the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants is, hereby, set
aside.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
brajesh/-
U T
Checking your session…