Patna High Court
Anita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The anticipatory bail petition is rejected as the petitioner already has regular bail and there is no occasion to entertain a fresh anticipatory bail application.
Summary
Anita Devi was charged under multiple IPC offences, including an aggravated section 307 added after the FIR. She initially sought anticipatory bail, which was denied, and later surrendered, receiving provisional bail until the charge‑sheet was filed. The charge‑sheet was filed on 8‑Dec‑2022, causing the provisional bail to lapse, and she failed to appear when summoned on 26‑Mar‑2025, leading to a non‑bailable warrant. She again applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the matter was compromised, while the State contended she already had regular bail and was absconding. The High Court noted the existence of regular bail and the compromise, and consequently rejected the anticipatory bail petition.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted when the petitioner has already been released on regular bail after surrender?
- Does the addition of an aggravated offence (IPC s.307) affect the grant of anticipatory bail?
- What is the effect of a non‑bailable warrant and alleged absconding on the grant of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 325, 341, 354(A), 354(B), 379, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- provisional bail
- IPC
- section 307
- non‑bailable warrant
- absconding
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27061 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2020 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Anita Devi W/o Anil Prasad @ Anil Kumar R/o Village - Rajpur Tola,
Ganeshpur, P.S - Kesariya, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kalyan Shankar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending her arrest in connection with Trial No. 3548/2025
arising out of Kesariya P.S. Case No. 158 of 2020 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 325,
323, 324, 379, 354(A)(B), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code
and added section 307 of the I.P.C.
3. As per FIR, the accused persons including the
petitioner alleged to assault the informant and his family
members causing grievous injury, where the occurrence took
place on the basis of suspicion that wife and sister of the
informant were involved in learning black magic.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that initially the petitioner moved before this High
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27061 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/4
Court for grant of anticipatory bail which was rejected through
Cr. Misc. No. 8459 of 2021 dated 13.08.2021, whereafter
petitioner filed surrender-cum-bail petition before the learned
trial court, where she was granted provisional bail till
submission of charge-sheet vide order dated 23.08.2021, and on
same very day, her bail bond was accepted provisionally till
submission of charge-sheet. It is pointed out that provisional
bail was co-terminus with submission of charge-sheet and,
therefore, when on 08.12.2022, the charge-sheet was submitted,
the aforesaid provisional bail expired suo motu in terms of order
dated 23.08.2021 of the trial court.
5. In this context, it is further submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was granted provisional
bail on 22.08.2021, whereas the aggravated section of the
offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC has already
been added with FIR on 10.08.2021 i.e. prior to the provisional
bail, suggesting that the learned trial court considering the
involvement of the petitioner qua aggravated offence under
section 307 IPC also considered to release her on provisional
bail.
6. It appears from perusal of record that learned trial
court took cognizance for the offences punishable under section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27061 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
3/4
307 of the IPC against the petitioner vide its order dated
11.12.2024 and issued summon against petitioner to appear by
fixing date on 26.03.2025, but on the same very day the
petitioner was not present before the court and consequent upon,
NBW was issued against the petitioner.
7. In aforesaid background, it is further submitted by
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that aforesaid order
of learned jurisdictional Magistrate/trial court dated 26.03.2025
was challenged before this Court through Cr. Misc. No.
59078/2025 dated 31.03.2026, wherein the operation of the
order was stayed by this High Court, but learned counsel fairly
conceded that the petition of this petitioner was dismissed as
withdrawn.
8. Learned counsel relied upon the legal report of
Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Sumit Vs. State of
U.P. & Anr. reported in 2026 INSC 145.
9. While concluding argument, it is submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter now
compromised between the parties and in support of his
submission, he has drawn attention of this Court towards
Annexure ‘7’ of the petition.
10. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27061 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
4/4
prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that
petitioner was granted provisional bail on surrender and it was
till submission of charge-sheet, whereafter the petitioner failed
to appear on the date fixed before the learned trial court and
instead of surrendering before the court, petitioner is absconding
from the court proceeding.
11. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of the fact as petitioner has already granted regular
bail upon surrender, there is no occasion arising subsequently to
entertain the anticipatory bail with same police case,
accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner
stands rejected with observation that the learned trial court,
positively on same very date on which the petitioner
surrenders before it, may consider the prayer of her bail for the
following reason:
(i) As the petitioner is a lady and was on provisional
bail and while her provisional bail was considered by
the learned trial court, by that time, the offence
punishable under section 307 of the IPC was already
added in FIR, as discussed aforesaid; and
(ii) The matters appears compromised in view of
Annexure ‘7’ of the bail petition.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…