Patna High Court
Lakshman Jha @ Lakshman ShastriversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court disposed of the appeal, directing the appellants to surrender before the trial court, thereby refusing anticipatory bail.
Summary
The appellants, members of the Jha family, were charged under multiple IPC sections, the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act based on a complaint alleging assault, intimidation and use of caste slurs. They applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Special Judge, prompting this appeal. The appellants contended that the complaint was false, filed after a delay, that no FIR was registered, and that they never received summons or warrants, arguing procedural irregularities. The State argued that cognizance was properly taken and that a prima facie case existed. The High Court, while inclined to grant anticipatory bail, held that cognizance had already been taken and therefore disposed of the appeal, directing the appellants to surrender before the trial court on 11‑05‑2026.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellants.
- Whether cognizance of the offence can be taken on the basis of a complaint under Section 82 CrPC.
- Whether procedural defects such as delay in filing the complaint and lack of summons affect the validity of the proceedings.
- Whether the allegations constitute a prima facie offence under the IPC, Arms Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82, 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(ra), 3(i)C
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cognizance
- complaint vs FIR
- SC/ST Act
- IPC offences
- procedural irregularities
- surrender
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5354 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2023 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Lakshman Jha @ Lakshman Shastri Son of Late Bhola Nath Jha R/O-
Village- Bhavam, P.S.- Rudrapur, Distt.- Madhubani
2. Jagta Nand Jha Son of Lakshman Jha @ Lakshman Shastri R/O-Village-
Bhavam, P.S.- Rudrapur, Distt.- Madhubani
3. Lakshmi Jha wife of Dharamveer Kumar Mishra R/O-Village- Bhavam,
P.S.- Rudrapur, Distt.- Madhubani
4. Mahanand Jha Son of Lakshman Jha @ Lakshman shastri R/O-Village-
Bhavam, P.S.- Rudrapur, Distt.- Madhubani
5. Devanandan Jha Son of Lakshman Jha @ Lakshman Shastri R/O-Village-
Bhavam, P.S.- Rudrapur, Distt.- Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shivsarjan Paswan Son of Late Lakhan Paswan R/O-Village- Rajatol, Ward
No. 10, P.S.- Rahika, Distt.- Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Pandey
Mr.Kumari Pallavi
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
Mr.Subhash Kumar Jha
Mr.Chaudhary Prem Kumar Thakur
Mr.Deepak Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 30-04-2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The appellants have challenged the order dated
30.09.2024 passed by the learned A.D.J. 1st-cum- Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Madhubani in connection with ABP No.1882
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5354 of 2024(4) dt.30-04-2026
2/5
of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No.75 of 2023, instituted
for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and
Sections 3(i)C, 3(2)(ra) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby their prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that appellants have antecedent of one case
but then after filing of the instant appeal another Complaint
Case came to be instituted. It is next submitted that informant
alleges that Laxman Jha met him near Chakdah crossing while
he was carrying a lady passenger in his rickshaw and said that
you have not returned the interest of Rs.30,000/- on the loan
which you had taken in Delhi, on which the complainant replied
that all money has been returned on which Laxman started
abusing and Jagda Nand Jha started strangulating him by a
towel and abused by taking caste name and thereafter Laxman
also abused by taking caste name and said to kill on which
Devanand and Mahanand assaulted and Laxmi Jha assaulted by
sleeper.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5354 of 2024(4) dt.30-04-2026
3/5
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on
account of dispute relating to money the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place. It is further submitted that informant had
taken loan from Laxman Jha in Delhi with an assurance that
interest would be paid on the same but since interest was not
being paid, hence Laxman Jha asked the informant to pay the
interest at least on which the instant false case came to be
instituted implicating all his family members with peculiar kind
of allegations. It is also submitted that informant is a witty
litigant as such instituted a complaint case and not an FIR. It is
next submitted that had an FIR been instituted the allegations
would have been investigated but then by filing a complaint, it
becomes easy for the complainant to bring two witnesses before
the learned Magistrate based on which cognizance is taken as
the learned Magistrate does not have any material apart from
what is deposed by the complainant and witnesses at the time of
taking cognizance. It is next submitted that it appears that
appellants were even not aware that a complaint case has been
instituted. It is further submitted that when police came
knocking the door of the appellants then they came to know
about the institution of the instant complaint in which process
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5354 of 2024(4) dt.30-04-2026
4/5
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. also has been issued. It is further
submitted that appellants never received summons, bailable
warrants or non-bailable warrants nor there is any service report
on record with regard to the same but then learned Court in
mechanical manner issued the process. It is also submitted that
though in the complaint case it has been pleaded that FIR of the
complainant was not taken by the police, but then the
complainant alleges that he had gone to get the FIR instituted on
27.06.2023, but then the instant complaint came to be instituted
on 25.07.2023 i.e. after a delay of more than 28 days which
amply demonstrates that no such occurrence ever took place or
else if the police had not registered the FIR in that event the
complaint case would have been instituted promptly.
5. The learned Special P.P. as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
appeal. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submits that cognizance has been taken as such a
prima facie offence is made out and also submits that process
under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has also been issued on which
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that they are not aware that process under Section 83
Cr.P.C. also has been issued as the same never got executed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5354 of 2024(4) dt.30-04-2026
5/5
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court was inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to
the appellants, but since cognizance has been taken as such the
appeal is disposed off with a direction to the appellants to
surrender before the learned trial Court on 11.05.2026, if the
appellants surrender before the learned trial Court on
11.05.2026, in that event, the learned trial Court shall consider
and disposed of the case on the same day keeping in mind the
fact that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it
appears that on account of dispute relating to money the
occurrence is alleged to have taken place.
7. The appeal is disposed of.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…