Patna High Court
Tuntun SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court rejected the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Tuntun Sah and Mantu Kumar, were implicated in a 2020 FIR (PS Case No. 337) for offences under Sections 341, 323, 385, 387, 436, 379, 504 and 34 of the IPC. They filed an anticipatory bail application in January 2026, having previously had similar applications rejected by the District Judge in 2020 and by this Court in April 2025. The State argued that the petitioners delayed asserting their right to bail, especially after another co‑accused obtained anticipatory bail in a related matter (Cr. Misc No. 62409 of 2022, order dated 3‑7‑2023). The petitioners were unable to rebut this submission. Relying on the delay and the earlier rejections, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that a person who does not approach the Court in time should not be dealt leniently.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners despite prior rejections and a five‑year delay.
- Whether the delay in filing the application amounts to a waiver of the right to anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 379, 385, 387, 436, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- delay
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3258 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-337 Year-2020 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Tuntun Sah S/o- Hari Sah Resident of Village- Amwa nijamat Ps- Paharpur
District-East Champaran Bihar
2. Mantu Kumar @ Anjay Kumar S/o- Baltu Sah Resident of Village- Amwa
nijamat Ps- Paharpur District-East Champaran Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Paharpur PS Case No. 337 of 2020 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 385, 387, 436,
379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners has antecedent of three cases.
4. At this stage, the learned APP submits that the case
is of the year 2020 and the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner was rejected by learned District Judge in the year
2020 itself, five years thereafter again ABP no. 1449 of 2025
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3258 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/2
was filed (i.e. the instant ABP) and the same came to be rejected
on 22-4-2025 and thereafter the instant anticipatory bail
application has been filed in January 2026. Learned APP thus
submits that petitioner was sleeping over his right and only
when some other accused in the FIR was granted the privilege
of anticipatory bail, the petitioner woke from his slumber, but
then the accused who was granted the privilege of anticipatory
bail by this Court in Cr. Misc No. 62409 of 2022, was granted
the said privilege by an order dated 3-7-2023, but still the
petitioner was sleeping over his right. It is submitted that a
person who does not approach the Court in time should not be
dealt leniently.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a
position to rebut the submission of the learned APP.
6. Considering the submission made by learned APP,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioners is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…