Patna High Court
Mukesh GoswamiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Mukesh, Pawan and Mankhush Goswami, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.614 of 2025 alleging offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted and attempted to kill several persons, causing injuries and theft. The petitioners contended that the injuries were minor and did not substantiate the serious allegations, and that two of them had no criminal record while the third was on bail for a prior case. The State opposed the bail. Considering the nature of the injuries, the lack of prior convictions for two petitioners, and the presence of only a pending case for the third, the Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and specific conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the alleged offences and the nature of injuries
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedents, or lack thereof, affect the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 15(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure
- Section 438
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- simple injuries
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17706 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-614 Year-2025 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Mukesh Goswami Son of Dayanand Goswami Resident of Village- Suggi,
P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui
2. Pawan Goswami Son of Dayanand Goswami Resident of Village- Suggi,
P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui
3. Mankhush Goswami Son of Mukesh Goswami Resident of Village- Suggi,
P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Jamui P.S. Case No.614 of 2025, F.I.R dated
08.11.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 15(2), 352, 109, 118(1), 303(2), 3(5), 117(2)
and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 07.11.2025 at
about 7:30 P.M., while she was sitting in her house, the accused
persons suddenly arrived and started abusing her. Upon protest,
Mukesh Goswami and Pawan Goswami, armed with swords and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17706 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/4
allegedly acting at the instigation of Dayanand Goswami,
assaulted Lalu Goswami and Kanhaiya Goswami with an
intention to kill, causing head injuries to both. It is further alleged
that Mankhush Yadav pushed Kanhaiya Goswami to the ground
and snatched Rs.25,000/- in cash and a gold chain. When the
informant objected, Mankhush Goswami allegedly assaulted her
with an iron rod with intent to kill, causing injury to her hand
resulting in fracture. Rinku Devi and Komal Devi also allegedly
assaulted the informant by pulling her hair and beating her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
nature of injuries sustained by the informant does not
corroborate the nature of allegations levelled in the F.I.R. as the
injuries have been sustained on his arm and wrist and with
regard to other persons, the injuries have been found to be
simple in nature and there is no specific allegation of any overt
act levelled against the petitioner rather the allegations are
general and omnibus in nature. It has next been submitted that
the one co-accused person, namely, Dayanand was already taken
into judicial custody and is on bail. Lastly, it has been submitted
that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have no criminal antecedent while
petitioner No.3 has one criminal antecedent in which he is on
bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17706 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/4
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in
nature and with regard to the informant, the injuries does not
corroborate the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and petitioner
Nos. 1 and 2 have no criminal antecedent while petitioner No.3
has one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail. Accordingly,
this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period
of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, in connection with
Jamui P.S. Case No.614 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17706 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
4/4
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.