SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3669

PATNA HIGH COURT
Prabhat Kumar Singh, J
Golu Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3124 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellant/s: Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Mrs. Divya Bharti
For the Respondents: Mrs. Usha Kumari 1, Mr. Subhesh Pandey, Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra

The court overruled the bail denial, citing insufficient evidence for the appellant's involvement in the crime.

Headnote:This case concerns an appeal against a bail rejection order concerning charges under various sections including the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant's name was not present in the FIR, and no eyewitnesses identified him. The court found it reasonable to grant bail given the circumstances, supported by the emphasized lack of direct involvement. The decision of the lower court was set aside in favor of the appellant.

Table of Content
1. bail application details (Para 3)
2. arguments by counsel regarding bail (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's decision on bail (Para 6)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

4 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, respondent no. 2 and the State.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated

10.07.2025 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act, Begusarai in connection with Nawkothi P.S. Case No. 05 of 2025 registered under Sections 103 , 61(2), 190, 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 (1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , whereby the prayer for regular bail of appellant has been rejected.

3. According to the prosecution case, the informant is the proprietor of A-one Brick Kiln located at Pahsara and on 07.01.2025 at about 11-12 P.M., 7-8 unknown miscreants armed with weapons came to his brick kiln and brutally assaulted the workers.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name transpired during course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. During course of investigation, none of the labourers working at brick kiln have claimed to have seen this appellant committing the alleged offence. There is no allegation of abuse by caste name against the appellant. Charges have already been framed and appellant is in custody since

30.01.2025.

5. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. Considering the nature of accusation and period of custody, this Court sets aside the impugned order and directs the release of above named appellant on bail on furnishing bail- bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act, Begusarai in connection with Nawkothi P.S. Case No. 05 of 2025.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top