Patna High Court
Santoshi DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The appeal was dismissed and bail was not granted to the appellant.
Summary
Santoshi Devi appealed against the denial of bail in a murder case (PS Case No. 346 of 2024) filed under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution alleges that co‑accused and other miscreants killed the informant’s brother over a money dispute, and that a confessional statement of co‑accused Sujit Kumar, together with a recovered mobile phone, links the appellant to the crime. The appellant contends she was never named in the FIR, was falsely implicated, and did not insult the victim’s caste, thus no SC/ST offence. The High Court, after considering the evidence of involvement, refused bail and dismissed the appeal, directing the trial court to expedite the trial and allowing the appellant to file a fresh bail petition if the trial exceeds four months. The order emphasizes the seriousness of the alleged offences and the need for speedy trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the appellant pending trial under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellant’s alleged conduct amounts to an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused and the recovered mobile phone constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5), 61(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- SC/ST Act
- caste-based offence
- confessional statement
- appellate court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2712 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-346 Year-2024 Thana- THAWE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Santoshi Devi Wife of Ranjit Baitha Village-Goplamath, P.S.- Thawe, District
-Gopalganj
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shrikant Ram Son of Late Sukhram Ram Village-Goplamath, P.S.- Thawe,
District -Gopalganj
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prerna Rishi, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, APP
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Najeeb Ahmad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge XI-cum-Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST,
Gopalganj whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in
connection with Thawe PS Case No. 346 of 2024 instituted
under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST Act was rejected.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that co-accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2712 of 2025(5) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
persons along with two to three miscreants are alleged to have
taken the informant’s brother away and shot him dead and
thrashed his head by bricks. It is further alleged that few days
back, the informant’s brother had worked at the house of the co-
accused, Mukesh Kumar Singh for which Rs. 5000/- was due
and when the deceased asked for the said money, he was
murdered.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
Appellant is not even named in the FIR. The name of the
appellant has transpired on the basis of confessional statement
of co-accused, namely, Sujit Kumar. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the appellant has not taken the
caste name of the informant in public view. Hence, no offence
under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against her. The
appellant has no intention to disgrace the image of the informant
in public view. The appellant is in custody since 21.12.2024 and
has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
petitioner. Perusal of the case diary reveals that co-accused Sujit
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2712 of 2025(5) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
Kumar, in his confessional statement, stated that the appellant
made a WhatsApp call to Sikandar and called him to the
orchard. The appellant in her confessional statement admitted
the same and led to recovery of the concealed mobile from her
house. The inquest report indicates homicidal death, and the
post-mortem report confirms death due to haemorrhage and
shock caused by injuries from a hard and blunt substance.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and there being involvement of the appellant, this
Court is not inclined to allow the appeal. Appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed.
7. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments.
8. However, appellant will be at liberty to renew her
prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of
four months.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…