Patna High Court
Sanchu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable where a process under Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS has been issued against the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanchu Kumar, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case involving offences under several sections of the Bihar Non‑Statutory (BNSS) Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with eight others, was armed and fired at the informant’s husband, causing a bullet to pass through his ear. The petitioner contended that she was merely named as a member of an alleged unlawful assembly and that no overt act was attributed to her, thus no prima facie case existed. The informant’s counsel pointed out that a process under Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS had already been issued against the petitioner, rendering the anticipatory bail application non‑maintainable. The court, noting the issuance of such process, rejected the anticipatory bail plea, directing the petitioner to surrender within four weeks and seek regular bail before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when a process under Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS has already been issued against the petitioner.
- Whether the absence of an alleged overt act against the petitioner negates a prima facie case for anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner should be directed to surrender and apply for regular bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- unlawful assembly
- Arms Act
- process under sections 84 and 85
- regular bail
- surrender
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21748 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2025 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Sanchu Kumar S/O Rajaram Yadav R/O Village- Kumar Chakki @ Kumhar
Chakki Ward No.-8, P.S- Muffasil Khagaria, Distt.- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State, and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has
been filed by the petitioner apprehending her arrest in
connection with S. Kamal P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025, instituted
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352,
351(1) & (2), 109 and 3(5) of the BNS, and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that while
the informant’s husband, along with his uncle, was entering his
house, nine named accused persons, including the petitioner,
allegedly armed with country-made weapons, started abusing
them. Upon objection, it is alleged that Allah Yadav and Ankit
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21748 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
Yadav fired at the informant’s husband, and the bullet passed
through his ear.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is further submitted that, from the perusal of the
F.I.R., although the petitioner has been named, there is no
allegation of any overt act against her, and she has merely been
implicated as a member of the alleged unlawful assembly.
Hence, no prima facie case is made out against her.
5. Countering the same, learned counsel for the
informant submits that, from the perusal of paragraph 105 of the
case diary, it transpires that process under Sections 84 and 85 of
the BNSS has already been issued against the petitioner.
Therefore, the present application for anticipatory bail is not
maintainable.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, particularly the issuance of process under Sections
84 and 85 of the BNSS, this Court is not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for
anticipatory bail is rejected as not maintainable.
7. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender
before the learned trial court within a period of four weeks from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21748 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
today and seek regular bail. In the event of such surrender, the
learned trial court shall consider her prayer for regular bail on
its own merits, without being prejudiced by the observations
made herein, and keeping in view the nature of the allegations.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-
U T
Checking your session…