Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable where proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC have already been initiated.
Summary
Sunil Kumar Sah filed an anticipatory bail petition fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 341, 323, 406, 420, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The informant argued that criminal proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC had already been initiated against the petitioner, rendering the anticipatory bail petition non‑maintainable. The court examined Supreme Court decisions (Lavesh v. State, State of MP v. Pradeep Sharma, Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, State of Haryana v. Dharamraj) which hold that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when a regular criminal process is already underway. Relying on these precedents, the High Court concluded that the petition was not maintainable. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail petition is maintainable when criminal proceedings under Section 82/83 CrPC are already pending
- Whether Supreme Court precedents preclude anticipatory bail in such circumstances
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82, 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 406, 420, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 82 CrPC
- Section 83 CrPC
- criminal procedure
- bail jurisprudence
- IPC offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54369 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2018 Thana- PURAINI District- Madhepura
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Sah S/o Sri Bisundev Sah R/o Village- Dumrail, P.S.- Puraini,
District- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vibhuti Kumar, S/O- Late Nakuldeo Kumar Vill- Ganeshpur, P.S.- Puraini,
Distt.-Madhepura
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Puraini P.S.
Case No. 92 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 406, 420, 504 & 506 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the informant that
process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, Section 83
Cr.P.C. have been initiated by learned Magistrate against this
petitioner and as such, this anticipatory bail petition is not
maintainable, in the light of decisions of the Supreme Court in
the case of (Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54369 of 2025(4) dt.08-01-2026
2/2
State of MP v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 17 and Prem
Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955)
as also latest decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Dharamraj in (2023) 17 S.C.C. 510.
4. Considering the aforesaid development, the present
anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed, as same is not
maintainable.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
anay
U T
Checking your session…