Patna High Court

Anu KumariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 3 February 2026
Disposal: WITHDRAWN
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed because the petitioner was already arrested, making the relief infructuous.

Summary

Anu Kumari filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in connection with PS case No. 309 of 2024, which alleged offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The SHO appeared before the Patna High Court and admitted that, despite a final form favoring the petitioner, he was ordered by his superior to arrest her. The petitioner’s sister had informed the SHO on 31-1-2026 that the case was scheduled for a hearing on 2-2-2026, yet the arrest proceeded. The Court observed that the petitioner had already been taken into custody, rendering the anticipatory bail relief moot. Consequently, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application as infructuous and dispensed with the personal appearance of the police officers.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner is already in custody
Whether the police may arrest a person despite a final form indicating bail in their favour

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
arrest
police procedure
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure
High Court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2742 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-309 Year-2024 Thana- GORIAKOTHI District- Siwan
                 ======================================================
                 Anu Kumari D/o Nishikant Singh @ Narhari Singh @ Narhadi Singh
                 Resident of Village- Sadipur, Police Station- Goreyakothi, District- Siwan,
                 Bihar.
                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                     ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhayay, Adv
                                                 Ms. Tetara Kumari, Adv
                                                 Mr.Raju Prasad, Adv
                                                 Mr. Manjesh Raj, Adv
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   03-02-2026               1.     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad.

                             2.     The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection

                   of Goreyakothi PS Case No. 309 of 2024 registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1),

                   117(2), 109, 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

                             3.     The case was taken up on 2-2-2026, when SHO and

                   the Investigating Officer of the case were directed to remain

                   physically present before this Court, but it has been submitted by

                   learned APP that the Investigating Officer, on account of some

                   difficulty, could not appear, but then the SHO is present.

                             4.     The SHO, who is present in the Court, does not

                   dispute the fact that the final form was submitted in favour of the

                   petitioner, but then it is submitted that on orders of his superior,
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2742 of 2026(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      he had no option but to arrest the petitioner, on which the learned

                      counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was mentioned on

                      31-1-2026 for taking it up out of turn on 2-2-2026, as police

                      despite submitting final form were making endeavours to arrest

                      the petitioner. It is next submitted that the case thereafter was

                      fixed for 2-2-2026 and the sister of the petitioner met the SHO

                      and the IO bringing to their notice that High Court has fixed the

                      case for taking it up out of turn, but then the SHO and the IO,

                      despite being made aware of the said fact, arrested the petitioner.

                               5.     The SHO does not dispute the said submission that

                      the sister of the petitioner had contacted him on 31-1-2026

                      bringing to his notice that case has been fixed for 2-2-2026, but

                      then on orders of his superior, he had no option but to arrest the

                      petitioner.

                               6.     Since the petitioner has been arrested, as such the

                      Court does not intend to proceed any further. The anticipatory

                      bail application is dismissed as having become infructuous.

                               7.     The personal appearance of the SHO and the

                      Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.



                                                (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…