Patna High Court
Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The second anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Summary
The petitioners, five individuals from Sohagi village, feared arrest in a case (PS Gaurichak, Case No. 546 of 2022) involving numerous offences under the Indian Penal Code. They had earlier obtained anticipatory bail (Cr. Misc. No. 34636 of 2023) which the court allowed them to withdraw on the condition that they surrender within six weeks and apply for regular bail. After co‑accused Bimlesh Ram and Mukesh Ram were granted anticipatory bail in a later application (Cr. Misc. No. 8347 of 2026), the petitioners filed a second anticipatory bail application. The State opposed, arguing that the petitioners were “fence‑sitters” and had been directed to seek regular bail, which they failed to do. The High Court held that the earlier order barred a fresh anticipatory bail and consequently rejected the second application.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the earlier order directing the petitioners to surrender and seek regular bail on a subsequent anticipatory bail application?
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a fresh anticipatory bail despite the changed circumstances and the State's objection.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 323, 332, 333, 337, 338, 341, 342, 353, 427, 504, 506, 509
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- withdrawal of bail
- Indian Penal Code
- high court
- criminal procedure
- fence sitter
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17105 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-546 Year-2022 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
1. Rohit Kumar Son of Nawal Kishore Ram @ Nawal Ram Resident of
village- Sohagi, P.S.- Gaurichak, District- Patna.
2. Jitendra Ram son of Balak Ram Resident of village- Sohagi, P.S.-
Gaurichak, District- Patna.
3. Rakesh Kumar son of Jitendra Ram Resident of village- Sohagi, P.S.-
Gaurichak, District- Patna.
4. Bikesh @ Bikash Kumar Son of Jitendra Ram Resident of village- Sohagi,
P.S.- Gaurichak, District- Patna.
5. Mantu Kumar @ Mantu Ram Son of Amir Ram Resident of village- Sohagi,
P.S.- Gaurichak, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149, 341, 342, 323, 307, 504, 506, 332, 333, 337, 338, 353, 188,
427, 509 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that petitioners had earlier moved before this
Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 34636 of
2023 and the same was permitted to be withdrawn by an order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17105 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
dated 25.07.2023 with a direction that if the petitioners
surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks and
seek regular bail, the learned Court below shall pass order on
the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced
by the order considering the fact that similarly situated co-
accused have been granted regular bail by the learned Court
below.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that subsequent to the orders passed by this
Court co-accused Bimlesh Ram and Mukesh Ram had
approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr.
Misc. No. 8347 of 2026 and the same came to be allowed by an
order dated 17.02.2026, as such, the petitioners submit that in
the changed circumstance, the petitioners have preferred the
instant second anticipatory bail application.
5. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the
State vehemently opposes the second anticipatory bail
application of the petitioners and submits that petitioners appear
to be fence sitters. It is further submitted that a learned
Coordinate Bench in the year 2023 itself had granted liberty to
the petitioners to surrender and seek regular bail and the learned
Trial Court was directed to consider the case on the same day
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17105 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
keeping in mind the fact that similarly situated co-accused have
been granted the privilege of regular bail but then the petitioners
instead of abiding by the orders passed earlier in Cr. Misc. No.
34636 of 2023 have approached this Court again after the order
dated 17.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 8347 of 2026. It is next
submitted that the order by which the anticipatory bail
application of the petitioners was permitted to be withdrawn
appears not to be annexed in Cr. Misc. No. 8347 of 2026.
6. After hearing the learned A.P.P. for the State, the
Court is not inclined to entertain the second anticipatory bail
application of the petitioners in connection with Gaurichak P.S.
Case No. 546 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned 1 st
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City/Successor
Court.
7. Hence, the second anticipatory bail application is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…