Patna High Court
Narendra Kumar Jha @ Narayan JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
When the investigating police, after a thorough investigation, exonerate the accused, the court may grant anticipatory bail notwithstanding a magistrate’s cognizance order.
Summary
The petitioner, Narendra Kumar Jha, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for alleged robbery and assault. He claimed a clean record and asserted that the informant falsely implicated him, stating that the police investigation concluded he was innocent and issued a final exoneration report on 9-11-2025. Despite this, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the FIR on 28-11-2025 and proceeded against the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel argued that it would be unjust to incarcerate him when the investigating agency had cleared him, and prayed for anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The State opposed the bail. Justice Satyavrat Verma, after considering the submissions, ordered that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the investigating police have exonerated the accused but a magistrate has taken cognizance of the FIR.
- Whether the petitioner is liable under the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the court can override the magistrate’s order in light of the police exoneration.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- police exoneration
- cognizance order
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3510 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Narendra Kumar Jha @ Narayan Jha Son of Late Baidyanath Jha @ Late Baij
Nath Jha @ Late Baijnath Jha Resident of Village- Bhakhrain, P.S.- Mdhepur,
District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Bharti
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Anurag Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 18-4-2025 at 8:45 pm, he was intercepted by the
accused persons including the petitioner and on orders of
petitioner, accused Gangesh fired but missed, thereafter he
assaulted the informant by butt of pistol causing injury on head
and Ritesh assaulted him by bamboo causing injury on head and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3510 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
Gangesh snatched his chain, mobile and Rs. 4,500/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
petitioner has been implicated by the informant with an
allegation that based on his orders, the occurrence of assault was
committed by Gangesh. It is next submitted that police after
threadbare investigation came to a considered conclusion that
petitioner is innocent thus submitted final form dated 9-11-2025
exonerating the petitioner of the allegation, but then learned
Magistrate differing with the police report, took cognizance by
an order dated 28-11-2025. The learned counsel for the
petitioner next submits that when one investigating agency after
threadbare investigation came to a considered conclusion that
petitioner is innocent, whether it would be prudent for the court
to send the petitioner to jail based on an order of cognizance
which came to be taken based on the same police report which
exonerated the petitioner of the allegation.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3510 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Madhepur P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…