Raghunath Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5051 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2025 Thana- SHYAMPUR BHATHAN DistrictSheohar ====================================================== Raghunath Mandal S/O Late Rup Narayan Mandal R/O Village- Rohua, P.SShyampur Bhatha, Distt.- Sheohar. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Mangal Ram S/O Late Asharfi Ram R/O Village- Bajitpur, P.S- Madhuvan, Distt.- East Champaran at Motihari.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Hans Lal Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act") against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.11.2025 in A.B.P. No. 454 of 2025 passed by the learned 1st District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Sheohar in connection with Shyampur Bhataha P.S. Case No. 172 of 2025 registered under Sections 85, 80, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Sections 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant has antecedent of one case as would manifest from the supplementary affidavit.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5051 of 2025(4) dt.23-04-2026 2/3

4. It is submitted that informant alleges that his daughter was married to Sonu Mandal and out of the wedlock, two children were born. Further, after marriage, Sonu Mandal was demanding Rs.2 lakhs and a motorcycle but on account of nonfulfillment of the demand, Sonu Mandal used to torture her. It is further alleged that on 11.10.2025, named accused persons including the appellant along with unknown accused killed the daughter of the informant and concealed the dead body. It is next alleged that on 12.10.2025, the informant received an information from an unknown person that his daughter has been killed and her dead body has been concealed, accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence and came to know that his daughter is at the house of Biraj Mandal, accordingly, he went to the house of Biraj Mandal but no one was present in the house and the dead body was also missing, thus, alleges that his daughter was killed on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand and the dead body went missing.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that thrust of the allegation of demand of dowry and torture is against Sonu Mandal. It is next submitted that marriage of Sonu Mandal with the victim

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5051 of 2025(4) dt.23-04-2026 3/3 was a love marriage. It is also submitted that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence but then he alleges that on 12.10.2025, he received an information that the accused persons including the appellant have killed his daughter and the dead body has been concealed, accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence when he was informed that the victim is at the house of Biraj Mandal but there also no one was found. It is further submitted that the entire allegation hinges around suspicion.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant and submits that the dead body of the victim is missing and the investigation of the case is continuing, hence, if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the appellant, the appellant may abscond.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant in connection with the aforesaid case.

8. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T