Patna High Court
Ram Sagar KunwarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The application for pre‑arrest bail was rejected as there was no change in circumstances warranting reconsideration.
Summary
The petitioners, four residents of Madhopur, sought pre‑arrest bail fearing arrest in connection with a 2024 case (PS 207) involving multiple offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. Their earlier bail application had been rejected on 24‑12‑2025 after the court noted that a process under Section 84 of the Act had already been issued. They now urged reconsideration, relying on a coordinate bench decision (Mangali Devi v. State of Bihar, 2025) which held that anticipatory bail may be entertained even when Sections 84/85 proceedings are pending, subject to the facts. The State opposed the fresh bail plea. The bench examined the record and found no change in circumstances or new material that would justify revisiting the earlier denial. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and upheld the earlier refusal of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory or pre‑arrest bail can be granted when a process under Section 84 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 has been initiated.
- Whether the earlier denial of bail can be reconsidered in light of the coordinate bench decision in Mangali Devi v. State of Bihar.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 84
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 84
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- bail reconsideration
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10374 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2024 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Ram Sagar Kunwar S/O Chulhai Kunwar R/O Village- Madhopur, P.S -
Laukaha, District - Madhubani.
2. Ashok Kunwar S/O Ramesh Kunwar R/O Village- Madhopur, P.S -
Laukaha, District - Madhubani.
3. Ramesh Kunwar S/O Late Jageshwar Kunwar R/O Village- Madhopur, P.S -
Laukaha, District - Madhubani.
4. Indrajit Sharma S/O Late Vijay Sharma R/O Village- Madhopur, P.S -
Laukaha, District - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Shivnandan Bharti, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 13-02-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners,
learned Advocate for the informant and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 207 of 2024, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
118(1), 117(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.,
2023.
3. This is the second attempt made on behalf of the
petitioners for grant of their pre-arrest bail, as earlier their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10374 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
2/3
prayer has been negated by this Court vide order dated
24.12.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 84362 of 2025, after taking into
consideration the nature of accusation and the fact that the
process under Section 84 of the BNSS has already been issued.
4. Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, learned Advocate for the
petitioners submitted that since the prayer for bail of the
petitioners was turned down, taking note of the fact that process
under Section 84 of the BNSS has been issued, hence the prayer
for re-consideration has been made in the light of the
pronouncement of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Mangali Devi @ Mangari Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of
Bihar, (2025) 4 PLJR 207 wherein the Court after taking note
of the various rulings of the Apex Court has concluded that
anticipatory bail petition of an accused facing accusation is
maintainable, even if proceeding under Sections 84 and 85 have
been initiated against him. However, grant or rejection of
anticipatory bail would depend upon facts and circumstances of
the case.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
opposed the pre-arrest bail application.
6. Having heard the learned Advocate for the
petitioner and taking note of the order, whereby the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10374 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail of the petitioners stood rejected, this Court
finds that before negating the prayer for bail, the Court has
taken various aspect of the matter and the materials available on
record. Hence this Court does not find any reason or occasion to
re-consider the prayer for bail of the petitioners. Besides the
aforesaid facts, this Court also finds that there is no subsequent
change in the circumstances which warrants any re-
consideration.
7. Accordingly, the present application stands rejected.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U T
Checking your session…