Golu Paswan @ Ravish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38762 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-311 Year-2023 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Golu Paswan @ Ravish Kumar S/o Samundra Paswan Resident of villagePralahand Colony, Baram Saray, P.S.- Ghoshi, District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 15-10-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ghoshi P.S. Case No. 311 of 2023 for the offence registered under sections 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 14.05.2023 by the informant, Bindi Paswan.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the marriage of the victim lady took place in the month of July, 2022 but she was always tortured for dowry and on the fateful day, some altercation took place, the lady was beaten and then killed, this led to the FIR.
4. In this case, the Co-ordinate Bench had called for the case diary which is on record and according to the postmortem report, the cause of death has been recorded as cardio respiratory failure due to throttling and strangulation.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38762 of 2025(3) dt.15-10-2025 2/2 being the husband, has been implicated, it was a suicide by the lady but has been given a different colour.
5. Learned APP Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that there is nothing on record to show that the accused have petitioned before the appropriate superior police authority to request for a proper investigation in the matter. In that background, the Court has to go by the post-mortem report.
6. Taking into account the submission of the parties as also the reason for death that has been recorded, petitioner being the husband, cannot exonerate himself for the responsibility. In that background, this Court is not inclined to grant him the anticipatory bail application.
7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Raj Ranjan/- U T