Patna High Court
VIKRAM MANJHIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The High Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of bail, finding that the addition of Section 376‑D IPC and the appellant’s non‑appearance provided sufficient supervening circumstances to deny bail.
Summary
The appellant, Vikram Manjhi, was initially granted regular bail in a case involving assault and related offences. While on bail, the investigating agency added the grave offence of gang rape under Section 376‑D IPC and additional provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The appellant failed to appear before the trial court, leading to the issuance of bailable and subsequently non‑bailable warrants. He appealed the trial court’s order rejecting his bail, arguing that the cancellation was mechanical and that he had not been served with summons. The High Court held that the addition of a more serious offence and the appellant’s non‑appearance constituted supervening circumstances justifying a fresh consideration of bail, and that the trial court had not acted arbitrarily. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail previously granted can be cancelled when a more serious offence is added to the charge sheet.
- Whether the trial court’s rejection of bail was mechanical or based on cogent reasons.
- Whether the appellant’s alleged non‑appearance and failure to cooperate justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 437(5), 439(2), 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 341, 376-D, 504, 506
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(i)(r)(s), 3(i)(r)(s)(w)(i)
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- supervening circumstances
- gang rape
- SC/ST Act
- non‑bailable offence
- criminal procedure
- high court appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.550 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-568 Year-2022 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
Vikram Manjhi S/O Babu Manjhi @ Sarju Manjhi R/O Village- Kosumhar,
P.S - Fatehpur, District- Gaya.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Parmanand Paswan S/o Late Baleshwar Paswan R/o vill- Chapri, P.S.-
Fatehpur, Distt.- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Usha Kumari 1, S.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
10 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the report
dated 01.12.2025 of Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Act, Gaya.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Exclusive Special
Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Gaya, whereby the prayer for grant of
bail of the appellant in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No.
568 of 2022, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and u/s 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, wherein
upon completion of investigation, Chargesheet was submitted
u/s 376-D, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.550 of 2025(10) dt.12-02-2026
2/11
read with Section 3(i)(r)(s)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act, was rejected.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.09.2022 at
about 4.00 A.M. while daughter of the informant had gone to
attend call of nature, in the meantime, Appellant along with
other co-accused forcibly assaulted her and they committed
gang rape with her. In course of the said incident, appellant and
other co-accused gagged her mouth resultantly, she sustained
injury and bleeding started from her mouth.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
earlier the appellant was granted regular bail by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.07.2023 passed in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 849 of 2023. In pursuance of the order
dated 06.07.2023, bail bond was furnished on 13.07.2023. The
cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant on
18.10.2023 and summon was issued against the appellant on
13.12.2023 without cancelling the bail bond of the appellant.
Thereafter, vide order dated 04.01.2024, bailable warrant of
arrest was issued against the appellant on 23.01.2024 and
subsequently on 29.01.2024 N.B.W. was issued against the
appellant. Police has not submitted service report for which
action has also been taken against the Police officer, thereafter,
vide order dated 03.04.2024, the record of the appellant has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.550 of 2025(10) dt.12-02-2026
3/11
been split up to the other accused persons. After separating the
record of this appellant in S.T. No. 175 of 2024, on 01.06.2024
processes u/s 82 of Cr.P.C. was issued. On 17.07.2024, the
appellant surrendered before the learned Court below and
prayed for bail, but his prayer was rejected vide impugned order
dated 14.08.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no
summons was ever served upon the appellant and no service
report was submitted by the police, and therefore he had no
knowledge about the order taking cognizance or the dates fixed
by the trial court. It is contended that there was no intention
whatsoever to misuse the privilege of bail and that cancellation
of bail cannot be mechanical or on mere technical grounds. It
has further been argued that upon perusal of the records it has
transpired that the bail bond furnished pursuant to the earlier
order of this Hon’ble Court was never formally cancelled and
that the appellant voluntarily surrendered immediately upon
gaining knowledge of the non-bailable warrant. Learned counsel
places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC
349 (para 4), wherein it has been held that
“Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the
initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.550 of 2025(10) dt.12-02-2026
4/11
have to be considered and dealt with on different
basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances
are necessary for an order directing the cancellation
of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the
grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly
(illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or
attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice or evasion or attempt to
evade the due course of justice or abuse of the
concession granted to the accused in any manner.
The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of
material placed on the record of the possibility of
the accused absconding is yet another reason
justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail
once granted should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether
any supervening circumstances have rendered it no
longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused
to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of
bail during the trial. These principles, it appears,
were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided
to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court
it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the
factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable
case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail
already granted.”
It has been categorically held that bail once granted
should not be cancelled in a routine manner unless there are
very cogent and overwhelming circumstances demonstrating
misuse of liberty or obstruction of justice, which are completely
absent in the present case.
6. Learned Special P.P. for the State has, vehemently,
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant. He further
submitted that after investigation I.O of this case has submitted
Chargesheet against the appellant and others u/s 341, 323, 504,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.550 of 2025(10) dt.12-02-2026
5/11
506, 307 and 376-D/34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3(1)(r)
(s)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Act. On the basis of the Chargesheet
against the appellant, cognizance was taken in this case and
after taking cognizance, since the appellant was on bail,
therefore, his bail bond was cancelled and process u/s 82 of
Cr.P.C. and non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued. From
perusal of the whole record it appears that the bail bond of the
appellant was cancelled on 23.01.2024, but due to clerical
mistake the same was not mentioned in the impugned order. He
has supported the impugned order and submitted that the
appellant remained absent after grant of bail, compelling the
court to issue coercive processes, and that Section 376-D of
IPC, being a grave and heinous offence, was subsequently
added, thereby materially altering the circumstances.
7. Perused the lower court records as well as the
impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned
Exclusive Special Judge, S.C./S.T., Gaya having considered the
rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that
although it is well settled that cancellation of bail stands on a
different footing from rejection of bail and liberty once granted
should not ordinarily be withdrawn in a mechanical manner, the
present case involves significant supervening circumstances.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.550 of 2025(10) dt.12-02-2026
6/11
The principles governing cancellation of bail, now reflected
under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS),
require that such cancellation must be supported by cogent
reasons such as misuse of liberty or other relevant
considerations. However, the matter at hand is not one of
mechanical cancellation simpliciter but involves reconsideration
of bail in light of subsequent developments.
8. It is not in dispute that after the appellant was
granted bail by this Court, Section 376-D IPC was added during
investigation. The addition of the offence of gang rape
substantially changes the gravity and complexion of the case. In
this regard, reference may be made to the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Ram vs. State of
Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2019) 17 SCC 326, wherein in
paragraph 27 it has been held that
“We may have again to look into the
provisions of Sections 437(5) and 439(2)
CrPC. Sub-section (5) of Section 437 CrPC
uses the expression “if it considers it
necessary so to do, direct that such person
be arrested and commit him to custody”.
Similarly, sub-section (2) of Section 439
CrPC provides:“may direct that any person
who has been released on bail under this
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.550 of 2025(10) dt.12-02-2026
7/11
Chapter be arrested and commit him to
custody”. A plain reading of the aforesaid
provisions indicates that provision does not
mandatorily provide that the court before
directing arrest of such accused who has
already been granted bail must necessarily
cancel his earlier bail. A discretion has been
given to the court to pass such orders to
direct for such person be arrested and
commit him to the custody which direction
may be with an order for cancellation of
earlier bail or permission to arrest such
accused due to addition of graver and non-
bailable offences. The two-Judge Bench
judgment in Mithabhai Pashabhai
Patel[Mithabhai Pashabhai Patelv.State of
Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 332 : (2009) 2 SCC
(Cri) 1047] uses the word “ordinarily” in
para 18 of the judgment which cannot be
read as that mandatorily bail earlier granted
to the accused has to be cancelled before the
investigating officer to arrest him due to
addition of graver and non-bailable
offences.”
9. When a person is granted bail for offences
initially alleged and subsequently more serious offences are
added, it is open to the court to direct that such accused be taken
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.550 of 2025(10) dt.12-02-2026
8/11
into custody and require him to apply for bail for the newly
added offences, and that the accused cannot claim that the
earlier order granting bail ensures to his benefit in respect of the
newly added offences as a matter of right. The Apex Court thus
clearly laid down that addition of graver offences constitutes a
material change in circumstance and the accused cannot insist
upon automatic continuation of the earlier bail order.
10. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present
case, once Section 376-D of IPC was added, the appellant was
required to satisfy the court afresh regarding his entitlement to
bail. The learned trial court was, therefore, fully competent to
examine the matter independently in light of the newly added
serious offence.
11. A report dated 01.12.2025 has been received
from the Court below. From perusal of the report it appears that
on 03.04.2024, the trial of both the accused have been separated
and separate case number i.e. S.T. No. 175 of 2024 and on
01.06.2024, process u/s 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against the
accused and thereafter, on 17.07.2024, the appellant Vikram
Manjhi was arrested. In the separated trial, the charge has also
been framed on 30.07.2025.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.550 of 2025(10) dt.12-02-2026
9/11
12. The Apex Court has thus emphasized that in
cases involving grave sexual offences, greater judicial caution is
required, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, the
vulnerability of the victim, and the larger societal interest. It has
further observed that where the trial has commenced and
material witnesses remain to be examined, interference with an
order refusing bail should be exercised sparingly.
13. It is also well settled that conduct of the
accused while on bail is a crucial consideration, and where such
conduct indicates evasion of process or lack of respect for the
court’s authority, the same militates against grant of bail.
14. Further, it is well settled that supervening
circumstances which have a direct bearing on the seriousness of
the offence or the likelihood of the accused abusing liberty
furnish valid grounds for refusal or withdrawal of bail. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that while personal
liberty is important, it cannot be placed above the interest of
justice, particularly in heinous crimes affecting society at large.
15. In the present matter, the allegations include
offences under Sections 307 and 376-D of IPC along with
provisions of the SC/ST Act. The record further indicates that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.550 of 2025(10) dt.12-02-2026
10/11
after taking cognizance on 18.10.2023, the appellant did not
appear before the trial court, resulting in issuance of bailable
warrant and thereafter non-bailable warrants. Even if the
appellant disputes service of summons, the fact remains that he
remained absent until coercive steps were taken and as per the
report submitted by the court below, the appellant was arrested
on 17.07.2024. A person enlarged on bail is expected to remain
vigilant and cooperate with the proceedings of the court. Grant
of bail carries with it an obligation to appear before the court as
and when required.
16. Considering the gravity of the allegations,
subsequent addition of Section 376-D of IPC after grant of bail,
the conduct of non-appearance leading to issuance of non-
bailable warrants as well as issuance of process u/s 82 of
Cr.P.C., charge being framed, the case is fixed for evidence and
the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep
Ram vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned trial court has not acted
mechanically or arbitrarily in rejecting the prayer for bail. The
impugned order reflects due consideration of the relevant facts
and circumstances and does not suffer from perversity or
illegality warranting interference by this Court in appellate
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.550 of 2025(10) dt.12-02-2026
11/11
jurisdiction.
17. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the
Appellant is, hereby, rejected and the present Appeal stands
dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…