Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Verma @ Manendra Kumar VermaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioners were already on bail and had not misused it; they must surrender before the trial court for regular bail.
Summary
The petitioners were accused of an acid attack on an informant, leading to FIR and multiple criminal cases. They obtained anticipatory bail for three of them earlier, but later the trial court took cognizance of additional offences, including the non‑bailable Section 326A IPC, and ordered regular bail. The petitioners filed a fresh anticipatory bail application, arguing that they were already on bail and had not misused it, and that the trial court's order was unclear. The State contended that anticipatory bail was not maintainable and that the petitioners should surrender for regular bail. The High Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the petitioners were already on bail and had not violated its conditions, directing them to surrender before the trial court for regular bail. The application was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when the accused are already on regular bail and cognizance is later taken under a non‑bailable offence.
- Whether the petitioners must surrender before the trial court for regular bail instead of seeking anticipatory bail.
- Whether the order of the Principal Sessions Judge was sufficiently clear to justify granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 325, 326A, 34, 341, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- cognizance of offence
- bailable and non‑bailable offences
- acid attack
- revision
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71225 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2022 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Verma @ Manendra Kumar Verma S/o
Ayodhya Prasad @ Jai Prakash @ Jai Prakash Verma R/o Village -
Basantpur, P.S - Basantpur, District - Siwan
2. Manendra Kumar @ Manendra Kumar Verma S/o Ayodhya Prasad @ Jai
Prakash @ Jai Prakash Verma R/o Village - Basantpur, P.S - Basantpur,
District - Siwan
3. Rajiv Verma @ Nitish @ Nitish Kumar S/o Ayodhya Prasad @ Jai Prakash
@ Jai Prakash Verma R/o Village - Basantpur, P.S - Basantpur, District -
Siwan
4. Ajay Raj @ Prakash Kumar @ Prakash @ Ajay Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar @
Manoj Kumar Verma R/o Village - Basantpur, P.S - Basantpur, District -
Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vidyapati, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant, Mr. Satyendra Rai.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71225 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
2/7
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite party submits that complainant was not made opposite
party in the case, but then complainant has appeared suo motu.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the case has a chequered history. It is
next submitted that petitioner nos. 1 and 3 have antecedent of
three cases and petitioner nos. 2 and 4 have antecedent of one
case and the informant alleges that on 19.06.2022 at 05:15 PM
he was returning home when he was intercepted by the accused
persons including the petitions near a Shiva temple and accused
persons started abusing, on protest, the accused assaulted him
by fist and leg and Manoj gave a bottle of acid to his son
Prakash @ Ajay and Manendar also gave a bottle of acid to his
son Nitish and Prakash and Nitish threw acid on the informant
causing injury.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated
in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that
after the FIR came to be instituted, the petitioners herein moved
before the learned District Court seeking anticipatory bail by
filing ABP No. 1898 of 2022 and the same was allowed by an
order dated 21.10.2022 with respect to petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71225 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
3/7
while while ABP No. 1898 of 2022 with respect to petitioner no.
4 herein was rejected. It is next submitted that police thereafter
investigated the case threadbare and came to a considered
conclusion that petitioners are innocent and thus submitted Final
Form No. 129 of 2023 dated 07.05.2023 exonerating the
petitioners of the allegation as alleged in the FIR. It is submitted
that thereafter a protest petition was filed on behalf of the
informant and the same was treated as a complaint case and the
learned Trial Court based on the protest petition took
cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 341, 504, 325
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by an order dated 02.05.2024.
It is submitted that since cognizance was taken under bailable
sections, as such, all the petitioners herein again surrendered
before the learned Trial Court and were enlarged on regular bail
by an order dated 03.07.2024. It is further submitted that the
complainant assailed the order dated 02.05.2024 by which
cognizance was taken against the petitioners under bailable
sections by filing Criminal Revision No. 743 of 2024 before this
Court. It is submitted that this Court allowed Criminal Revision
743 of 2024 by an order dated 23.04.2025 by setting aside the
order of cognizance and the matter was remanded back to the
learned Trial Court. It is next submitted that based on the order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71225 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
4/7
of remand by this Court, the learned Trial Court again took
cognizance of offences under bailable section including Section
326A of the IPC. It is submitted that Section 326A IPC is a non-
bailable section. It is submitted that petitioners thereafter never
received any summons and thereafter bailable warrant of arrest
was issued, as such, police came knocking the doors of the
petitioners when petitioners came to know that cognizance has
been taken under various sections of the IPC including Section
326A IPC by the learned Magistrate by an order dated
28.05.2025, thus, the petitioners apprehending arrest moved
before the learned District Court seeking anticipatory bail by
filing ABP No. 1626 of 2025 and the same came to be disposed
of which is impugned in the instant anticipatory bail application.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the learned District Court by an order
dated 04.09.2025 disposed of ABP No. 1626 of 2025, directing
the petitioners to surrender before the learned Trial Court and
seek regular bail within 30 days from the date of receipt of the
order dated 04.09.2025 and the learned Trial Court was directed
to pass orders in accordance with law.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that petitioners approached this Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71225 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
5/7
against the order dated 04.09.2025 in ABP No. 1626 of 2025 by
filing the instant anticipatory bail application for the reason that
the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gopalganj
was lacking in clarity. It is submitted that petitioners
apprehended that if they will surrender, it would be at the
discretion of the learned Trial Court to grant or not to grant the
privilege of bail. It is further submitted that since petitioners, as
recorded hereinabove, were already granted the privilege of bail
after surrendering, when cognizance was taken under bailable
sections, as such, merely because cognizance subsequently
came to be taken under a non-bailable section, also, that in itself
cannot be ground for arresting the petitioners until and unless
the petitioners have misused the privilege of bail, so granted
earlier.
7. The learned APP for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant are not in a
position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, but then it is submitted
that by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant
that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Gopalganj. It is submitted that the
petitioners, instead of approaching this Court, ought to have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71225 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
6/7
surrendered before the learned Trial Court seeking regular bail,
as in the facts of the case anticipatory bail is not maintainable,
on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that it is difficult to countenance the said
submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant, but then since petitioners were already on bail
and they have not misused the privilege of bail hence, are
entitled for bail on surrender, as it has been held by this Court in
the case of Mahendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar
reported in 2004 (3) PLJR 491, on which the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the said case
is with regard to police bail, on which the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the case in
hand is also akin to what was decided by this Court in the
aforesaid case of Mahendra Singh (supra).
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction to
the petitioners to surrender before the learned Trial Court on
30.04.2026 and the learned Trial Court shall on the same day
consider and dispose of the application, keeping in mind the fact
that petitioners were already granted the privilege of bail earlier
as recorded hereinaove and have not misused the privilege of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71225 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
7/7
bail.
9. The anticipatory bail application stands
disposed of.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…