Patna High Court
Ramanand ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Ramanand Thakur, Ram Snehi Thakur and Sobha Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under several sections of the BNS. They had earlier obtained an order disposing of their anticipatory bail application (Cr. Misc. No.58556 of 2025) on 15‑Nov‑2025, which was based on an earlier order dated 13‑Feb‑2024 in Naushad Ansari v. State. The petitioners failed to inform the investigating police of that order and allegedly refused to take notice under Section 35 BNS. The informant argued that the petitioners must honour the court’s earlier order and should not be shown leniency. After hearing both sides, the court declined to extend anticipatory bail, holding that the petitioners’ non‑compliance and the nature of the offences preclude such relief. Consequently, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioners have previously obtained a disposal order and failed to inform the police of the same.
- Whether refusal to take notice under Section 35 BNS bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the earlier order in Naushad Ansari v. State operates prospectively or retrospectively for the present petition.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 35, 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 35 notice
- non‑bailable offence
- court order compliance
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17987 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2025 Thana- MADHWAPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Ramanand Thakur Son of Ramsogarath Thakur @ Ram Swarth Thakur
Resident of Village - Pirokhar, Ps- Madhwapur, Dist- Madhubani
2. Ram Snehi Thakur Son of Ram Sogarath Thakur @ Ram Swarth Thakur
Resident of Village - Pirokhar, PS - Madhwapur, Dist- Madhubani
3. Sobha Devi @ Shobna Devi Wife of Ramanand Thakur Resident of Village -
Pirokhar, PS - Madhwapur, Dist- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raja Ram Rai, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2),
126(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5), 109 and 117(2) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.
3 is a woman.
4. 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. 58556 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17987 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/4
2025 and the same came to be disposed of by an order dated
15.11.2025 in terms of the order dated 13.02.2024 in Cr. Misc.
No. 3536 of 2024 (Naushad Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar).
5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant submits that no doubt, Cr. Misc. No. 58556 of
2025 was disposed of in terms of the order dated 13.02.2024 in
Cr. Misc. No. 3536 of 2024 but then the petitioners in
compliance of the order dated 15.11.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.
58556 of 2025 did not approach the concerned Superintendent
of Police and the Investigating Officer of the case bringing to
their notice that such an order has been passed on which learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that prior
to 15.11.2025, charge-sheet against the petitioners was
submitted based on which cognizance came to be taken under
Section 109 BNS read with other sections of the BNS but then
the FIR was instituted under section which carried punishment
of seven years and less, as such, Cr. Misc. No. 58556 of 2025
was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order dated
15.11.2025. It is further submitted that since charge-sheet was
submitted and cognizance came to be taken under non-bailable
section, hence, the petitioners did not approach the concerned
Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17987 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
3/4
case on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it
would manifest that petitioners refused to receive notice under
Section 35 BNSS as recorded at para 35 of the case diary on
which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the police mechanically recorded in the case diary
that petitioners refused to take notice under Section 35 BNSS
but then on query of the Court whether petitioners brought the
order dated 15.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 58556 of 2025
to the knowledge of the concerned Superintendent of Police and
the Investigating Officer of the case or not on which the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners fairly submits that
no representation in terms of the order dated 15.11.2025 was
filed. It is next submitted that petitioners prior to order dated
15.11.2025 had received notice under Section 35 BNSS on
which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant
submits that if petitioners had received the notice under Section
35 BNSS prior to order dated 15.11.2025 then why the said fact
was not brought to the notice of this Court and if petitioners had
received the notice then why the petitioners did not cooperate in
the investigation. It is also submitted that order dated
13.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3536 of 2024 was held per
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17987 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
4/4
incuriam by judgment dated 16.12.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 65700
of 2025 (Mohammad Raja Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.)
passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court but then the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant fairly
submits that order passed by the High Court operates
prospectively and not retrospectively, as such, the petitioners
ought to have honoured the order dated 15.11.2025 in Cr. Misc.
No. 58556 of 2025. Learned counsel for the informant, thus,
submits that persons who do not honour the orders of the Court
should not be dealt leniently.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioners in connection with Madhawpur P.S. Case
No. 49 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Benipatti, Madhubani/Successor
Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…