Patna High Court

Chhahku SharmaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 4 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

Anticipatory bail is not maintainable where regular bail has already been granted.

Summary

The petitioners, Chhahku Sharma and Mangal Sharma, feared arrest in a 2012 case involving offences under IPC sections 447, 341, 323, 504 and 34. They had been granted regular bail by the CJM, Madhepura on 16 July 2012, after which a charge‑sheet under section 307 IPC was filed and cognizance taken on 16 August 2012. The petitioners did not appear before the trial court and subsequently filed an anticipatory bail application before the Patna High Court. The State opposed the bail. The Court observed that once regular bail has been granted, an anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable and therefore rejected the application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when regular bail has already been granted to the petitioner
Whether the petitioners are liable to be taken into custody despite having been released on regular bail

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 447, 504

Subjects

anticipatory bail
regular bail
bail jurisprudence
Indian Penal Code
high court
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4898 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2012 Thana- ALAMNAGAR District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
           1.     Chhahku Sharma Son of Soman Sharma Resident of village - Forsahi, P.S.-
                  Alamnagar, District - Madhepura.
           2.    Mangal Sharma Son of Chhahku Sharma Resident of village - Forsahi, P.S.-
                 Alamnagar, District - Madhepura.

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026                      Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and

                   Learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in

                   connection with Alamnagar P.S. Case No.76 of 2012 lodged on

                   24.06.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 447,

                   341, 323, 504 & 34 of the IPC, pending before the Court of

                   J.M.-1st Class, Udakishunganj, Madhepura.

                                3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

                   the petitioners with allegation that there is apprehension of

                   breach of peace.

                                4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the

                   petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. He
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4898 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            2/3




          submits that the petitioners have preferred regular bail

          application before the C.J.M., Madhepura on 16.07.2012 and the

          C.J.M., Madhepura allowed bail to the petitioners on the same

          day. He further submits that after completion of the

          investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under section 307 of

          the IPC and cognizance has also been taken on the same section.

          It is not clear either from the record or to the counsel that once

          regular bail has been granted and they had surrendered,

          thereafter the Court below took cognizance dated 16.08.2012,

          why petitioners have not secured their appearance before the

          Trial Court. Neither it is pleaded in the petition nor any

          information is available to the petitioners.

                       5. Counsel submits that the criminal antecedent of the

          petitioners is clean.

                       6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail.

                       7. This Court is very much surprised that once bail

          has been granted to the petitioners on 16.07.2012 and

          cognizance has been taken on 16.08.2012, thereafter they ought

          to file an application before the Original Court securing his

          presence, but inspite thereof, they have moved for anticipatory

          bail again before this Court. On the basis of the documents and
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4898 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                     information available on record, it transpires to this Court that

                     once the petitioners have been granted regular bail, then the

                     anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

                                  8. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is

                     not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners,

                     therefore the bail application of the petitioners is hereby

                     rejected.



                                                             (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…