Patna High Court

Chunni Lal SahversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 29 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; anticipatory bail is not granted as cognizance has already been taken.

Summary

The appellant, Chunni Lal Sah, was charged under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Munger. The appellant appealed to the Patna High Court, contending that bail should be granted. The State argued that anticipatory bail could not be entertained because the trial court had already taken cognizance of the offences, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar. The High Court accepted the State’s submission, applied the Bachu Das precedent, and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the denial of anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the trial court has already taken cognizance of offences under the IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bachu Das v. State of Bihar is applicable to bar anticipatory bail in the present case.

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
cognizance
IPC
Dowry Prohibition Act
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
bail jurisprudence
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2062 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-400 Year-2024 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE
                                                    District- Munger
                 ======================================================
                 Chunni Lal Sah S/o Late Chandra Sah R/o Village- Jewellers Dixon Road
                 Mundichak Bazar, P.S.- Tilkamanjhi, Dist.- Bhagalpur

                                                                              ... ... Appellant/s
                                                    Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Sweta Ranjan W/o Saurabh Kumar D/o Shambhu Kumar, R/o Village-
                 Gardan Bazar, P.S.- Kotwali, Distrrict- Munger

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant        :     Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, Advocate
                 For the State            :     Mr. Binay Krishna, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   29-01-2026                 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

                   Spl.P.P. for the State.

                               2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order

                   dated 19.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

                   Judge 1st, Munger in a case registered for the offence punishable

                   under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code,

                   Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(i)

                   (r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

                   of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of

                   the appellant has been rejected.

                               3. At the outset, it is submitted by learned Spl.P.P.

                   appearing on behalf of the State that the prayer for grant of pre-
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2062 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
                                                          2/2




                       arrest bail to the appellant is not maintainable as from bare

                       perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that cognizance has

                       already been taken by the learned trial court for the offences

                       punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Indian

                       Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and

                       Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and

                       Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this regard,

                       reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

                       rendered in the case of Bachu Das Vs. State of Bihar and

                       others, reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 471.

                                    4.    In view of the aforesaid submissions and

                       pronouncement of law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

                       in the case of Bachu Das (supra), appellant’s prayer for grant of

                       pre-arrest bail is rejected and this appeal stands dismissed.



                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…