Patna High Court

Bhabhichhan Ram @ Bhavikshan Ram @ Bhabhighan RamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 29 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Bhabhichhan Ram, was implicated in a case under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code concerning a dowry death. He had earlier filed an anticipatory bail application which was rejected on 13 July 2023. In a second anticipatory bail petition, he again claimed to have been in Karnataka at the time of the alleged offence and sought to substantiate this claim with flight tickets, an engagement card, and other documents. The State opposed, arguing that the same plea had already been raised. The Patna High Court observed that the second application merely reiterated the earlier plea with added documentary support, which does not constitute a fresh ground for bail. Consequently, the Court held that the second anticipatory bail application was not maintainable and dismissed it.

Issues considered

Whether a second anticipatory bail application based on the same factual plea as a previously rejected application is maintainable.
Whether the submission of documentary evidence in a subsequent bail petition can revive the bail claim.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 34

Subjects

anticipatory bail
repeat application
maintainability
dowry death
IPC 304B
jurisdiction
evidentiary documents

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13495 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2023 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Bhabhichhan Ram @ Bhavikshan Ram @ Bhabhighan Ram S/O Harikhishan
                 Ram @ Hari Khishun Ram Resident of Village- Majuraha, P.S- Raghunathpur
                 O.P (Turkuliya, Distt.- East Champaran.
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   29-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Turkauliya (Raghunathpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 78 of 2023,

                   dated 18.01.2023, lodged under Sections 304(B) & 34 of the

                   Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of C.J.M., East

                   Champaran (Motihari).

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   admittedly this is the second anticipatory bail application.

                   However, during the course of investigation, a series of

                   materials have come on record, therefore, the points may be

                   considered and bail be granted on merits.

                                4. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,

                   submits that the petitioner has moved before this Court and has
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13495 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
                                                      2/2




                    taken the plea that he was in Karnataka, which he seeks to

                    advance in the present bail application.

                                 5. Upon perusal of the record and hearing the parties,

                    it transpires to this Court that in the second bail application, the

                    petitioner seeks to rely upon and produce all the documents

                    collected by the police to show that he was in Karnataka,

                    including flight tickets, an engagement card, etc. From the

                    rejection order of the anticipatory bail application of the

                    petitioner dated 13.07.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26259 of

                    2023, it is evident that the petitioner had taken the plea that at

                    the time of the death, he was in Karnataka and not in Patna.

                                 6. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has

                    come with the same plea, save and except that he now seeks to

                    place supporting documents in its proof. This Court is further of

                    the view that it is entirely the same point which the petitioner

                    had earlier raised and considered.

                                 7. As such, the second anticipatory bail application is

                    not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.



                                                                         (Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…