Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Patna Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar allowed a petition for anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act. The court directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest or surrender, subject to conditions. The court also issued directives to ensure that judicial officers and police authorities follow established Supreme Court guidelines relating to arrest procedures, and stressed that the maintainability of anticipatory bail petitions remains unaffected by provisions under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) or Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.).

The matter arose from Phenhara P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025, dated 14 March 2025, in East Champaran district. The case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act. The written report stated that the complainant's son, Shivam Kumar, was attacked by the petitioner with a pistol and knife while returning from shopping. Shivam Kumar, with the help of two nephews and a co-villager, allegedly overpowered the petitioner, snatched the pistol, and handed over the pistol, knife, and the petitioner's motorcycle (bearing Registration No. BR05-BG-9485) to the police. The petitioner fled the scene, leaving behind the motorcycle.

Also Read: Supreme Court Resets Paradeep Port Tariff Battle | Arbitral Award, Appellate And HC Orders Quashed, Both Tariff Periods Remitted To TAMP For Fresh Decision, Legislative Review Ordered

The petitioner initially moved the Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, by way of anticipatory bail petition No. 1523 of 2025. The Sessions Judge disposed of the petition without granting or rejecting bail, instead directing the petitioner to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer, citing directions issued in an earlier coordinate bench judgement in Asha Baitha vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44659 of 2024).

The petitioner's counsel argued before the High Court that the petitioner was innocent, falsely implicated, and should have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court instead of being referred to the police. Both the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the Amici Curiae submitted that the Sessions Court was not justified in avoiding a decision on the bail application.

The High Court reviewed the records, noting that the Sessions Judge had not adjudicated on the merits of the bail application. The earlier Naushad Ansari decision, relied upon by the Sessions Judge, had addressed the violation of Supreme Court directions in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) and Mohd. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand (2023) concerning arbitrary arrests and remands in offences punishable with up to seven years of imprisonment. However, the High Court clarified that neither the Supreme Court judgments nor the coordinate bench judgment in Naushad Ansari barred the maintainability of anticipatory bail petitions under Section 438 Cr.PC or Section 482 B.N.S.S.

The court recorded that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, had not received a notice under Section 41A Cr.PC/Section 35 B.N.S.S., and had not previously moved for similar relief. It held that anticipatory bail remained a viable remedy even where provisions like Section 41A applied, as apprehension of arrest does not vanish upon issuance of notice.

Justice Jitendra Kumar observed: "Such impression is urgently required to be dispelled, otherwise, such impression would render the provisions for pre-arrest bail otiose and nugatory, jeopardizing the life and liberty of the people by making it dependent upon the discretion of the police."

The court further stated: "Court seized with anticipatory bail petitions can not ask the petitioners to go to Police for relief under the provisions as provided under Section 41 and 41-A of the Cr.PC/ Section 35 of the B.N.S.S."

Referring to the legislative intent and constitutional safeguards, the court recorded: "Right to life and liberty is fundamental to human life... our Constituent Assembly has given utmost importance to this right by incorporating it as a fundamental right by way of Article 21 of the Constitution."

The judgment discussed the interplay of pre-arrest bail provisions and powers of arrest without warrant, noting: "The apprehension of arrest... never vanishes completely, even if notice is issued by the Police and all the conditions of the notice are complied with by the accused."

The court cited past precedents, including Gauri Shankar Roy v. State of Bihar (2015), Sona Kunwar v. State of Bihar (2021), and judgments from Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, all supporting the maintainability of anticipatory bail despite Section 41A Cr.PC.

Also Read: Calcutta HC Rejects Writ Against Officer’s ITC Finding Made Within Jurisdiction | Notes Failure To Show Bank Proof And Points To Appeal Remedy

Allowing the petition, the court directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within eight weeks, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The court stipulated that if it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has concealed criminal antecedents or made incorrect statements regarding previous bail petitions, the bail bonds shall be cancelled after hearing the petitioner.

The court instructed the Registrar General to circulate a copy of the judgment among all judicial officers in Bihar and to the Director of Bihar Judicial Academy for inclusion in training programmes. A copy was also to be sent to the Director General of Police for circulation among police officers.

The Court also expressly recorded its appreciation for the assistance provided by the learned Amici Curiae, Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate, and Shri Anil Singh, Advocate, and directed the Secretary, Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, to pay honorarium of Rs. 7,000/- each to both of the Amici Curiae.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Prasad Srivastava, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP

Amici Curiae: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate; Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate

Case Title: Navneet Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38822 of 2025

Bench: Justice Jitendra Kumar