Patna High Court
Pankaj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled merely because a proclamation under Section 82 was issued after the bail application, as the accused were not absconders or proclaimed offenders at the time of filing.
Summary
The petitioners sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Arvind Kumar and Shailesh Ray, arguing that the bail applications were filed after a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC had been issued and that material facts were suppressed. The court examined the timeline, noting that the proclamation was issued on 05‑02‑2026, while the bail applications were filed on 13‑02‑2026, after the proclamation. It was observed that the accused had previously approached the Additional Sessions Judge on 28‑01‑2026, before the proclamation, and therefore could not be deemed absconders or proclaimed offenders. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Lavesh v. State, the court held that the mere issuance of a proclamation does not automatically bar anticipatory bail if the accused were not aware of it. Consequently, the court found no ground to cancel the bail and dismissed the petitions seeking cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be cancelled on the ground of suppression of facts regarding a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC.
- Whether the accused can be classified as absconders or proclaimed offenders for the purpose of denying anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 82
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 82
- proclamation
- suppression of facts
- absconding
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33072 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2024 Thana- Pahelja P.S. District- Saran
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar S/o Ambika Ray R/o - Parmanandpur, Saran District -
Chhapra, Bihar - 841101
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arvind Kumar S/o Late Lal Babu Rai R/o - Kasmar, Saidpur, P.S - Pahleja,
District - Saran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 32753 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2024 Thana- Pahelja P.S. District- Saran
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar S/O Ambika Ray R/O Parmanandpur, Saran, District- Chapra,
Bihar- 841101
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The state of Bihar
2. Shailesh Ray @ Shailesh Kumar S/O Late Rajendra Ray R/O Chak Apsaid,
P.S- Sonepur, Distt.- Saran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 33072 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renuka Ratnakar, (App125)
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 32753 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renuka Ratnakar, (App.125)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 03-07-2026 Since both the matters are arising out of the same P.S.,
hence, they are being heard together and disposed of by this
common order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33072 of 2026(4) dt.03-07-2026
2/5
3. The present applications have been filed for
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite parties,
namely, Arvind Kumar and Shailesh Rai @ Shailesh Kumar,
earlier by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2026 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 14003 of 2026, arising out of Pahleja P.S. Case No.66
of 2024.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the primary ground for cancelling the anticipatory bail of the
opposite parties is the fact that the bail application of the
opposite parties was filed on 13.02.2026 before this Hon'ble
Court, however, prior to the filing of the anticipatory bail
application, proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, had already been initiated against the
opposite parties on 05.02.2026. It has, thus, been contended on
behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order has been
obtained by suppressing material facts before this Hon'ble
Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Pankaj Kumar,
submits that the fact of issuance of process under Section 82 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure was not disclosed by the
opposite parties, nor was it brought to the notice of this Court at
the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application. It has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33072 of 2026(4) dt.03-07-2026
3/5
been contended by the learned counsel that the accused persons
(opposite parties) deliberately avoided the process of law and
compelled the concerned Court to initiate proceedings under
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore,
they approached this Hon'ble Court for anticipatory bail without
disclosing the said proceedings. Relying on the order passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lavesh vs. State (NCT Delhi),
reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730, wherein it has been stated that
anticipatory bail should not be granted to an absconder or
proclaimed offender, it has, thus, been prayed that the order
dated 26.02.2026 may be recalled and the anticipatory bail
granted to the opposite parties be cancelled.
6. The learned APP for the State has supported the
contention of the petitioners and has stated that, in the event of
suppression of facts, the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite
parties shall be cancelled.
7. This Court had earlier called for the entire order
sheet as well as the details of the proceedings being conducted
by the court concerned, and a report was furnished by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Saran at
Chapra, wherein he has reiterated the fact that the proclamation
under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33072 of 2026(4) dt.03-07-2026
4/5
on 05.02.2026. However, in the said report, the concerned Court
has pointed out that the anticipatory bail applications filed on
behalf of the opposite parties were rejected by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IX on 28.01.2026.
8. From the perusal of the report furnished along with
the details of the proceedings, it is clear that the anticipatory bail
applications of the opposite parties were filed prior to the
issuance of the proclamation order, and the anticipatory bail
application was preferred by them before this Court after the
passing of the proclamation order, i.e., on 13.02.2026, within
eight days of the said proclamation order.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and taking into account the fact that the opposite parties had
already approached the Court of the learned District and
Sessions Judge prior to the issuance of the proclamation order,
they cannot be bracketed as absconders or proclaimed offenders.
This Court also observes that the anticipatory bail application
was filed on 13.02.2026 and it also cannot be stated that the
opposite parties were aware of such a proclamation order prior
to filing the anticipatory bail application before this Court.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I
am not inclined to interfere with the present application praying
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33072 of 2026(4) dt.03-07-2026
5/5
for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite
parties.
11. The aforesaid applications stand dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.