Patna High Court
Poornima DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to a proclaimed offender unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated, and therefore the petition was dismissed.
Summary
Petitioners Poornima Devi and Bachhu Mukhiya, in‑laws of the complainant, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a dowry‑related complaint (Case No. 23/2023) under IPC sections 498A, 341, 323, 379 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The State opposed, contending that a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC had already been issued, making them proclaimed offenders. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that a proclaimed offender is ordinarily ineligible for anticipatory bail except in rare, exceptional cases, the High Court held the application untenable. The court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, directing the petitioners to surrender within six weeks and permitting them to seek regular bail thereafter. The order also allowed filing of applications under Section 205 CrPC or Section 228 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable when the applicant is a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC.
- Whether the existence of a proclamation precludes the grant of anticipatory bail absent exceptional circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 228
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 205, 438, 82
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 379, 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- proclaimed offender
- dowry harassment
- IPC 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Section 82 CrPC
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73159 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - BENIPUR
District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Poornima Devi W/O Bachhu Mukhiya Resident of Village- Bhith
Bhagwanpur (Malwa Tole), Police Station- Madhepura, District-
Madhubani.
2. Bachhu Mukhiya S/O Rooplal Mukhiya Resident of Village- Bhith
Bhagwanpur (Malwa Tole), Police Station- Madhepura, District-
Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arti Kumari W/O Pradeep Kumar R/O Village- Bhith Bhagwanpur (Malwa
Tole), P.S- Madhepur, Distt.- Madhubani, Daughter of Sri Ganga Sahni, R/O
Village- Harsingpur (Navtoliya Panchayat), P.S- Bahera, Distt.- Darbhanga.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kaushal Kumar Jha. Advocate
For the State : Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No. 23 of 2023 instituted under Section
498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. The petitioners are in-laws of the complainant.
4. The following order was passed vide order dated
03.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 74701 of 2025, which reads
as follows:
“Heard learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73159 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
petitioner learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his
arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.
23/2023 registered for the offence punishable
u/ss 498A, 341, 323, 379 of the Indian Penal
Code and section ¾ of the DP Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioner and the co-accused persons are
alleged to have tortured the informant mentally
and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand
of dowry and ousted her from the matrimonial
home.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in this case.
There is general and omnibus allegation against
the petitioner. It is the further submitted that the
petitioner has never married the informant and
he has no concern with the alleged offence. The
petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated
in para 3 of the bail petition.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory
bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel has
further submitted that the instant anticipatory
bail application is not maintainable and from
the lower court record that vide order dated
27.05.2025, as the process u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C.
has already been issued against the petitioner.
The petitioner is declared a proclaimed offender.
Learned counsel has further relied upon the
case of (Abhishek vs. State of Maharashtra
(2022) 14 SCC 529) where it was held that “As
regards the implication of proclamation having
been issued against the appellant, we have no
hesitation in making it clear that any person,
who is declared as an ‘absconder’ and remains
out of reach of the investigating agency and
thereby stands directly at conflict with law,
ordinarily, deserves no concession or
indulgence.” Reliance has further been placed
on the decisions of (Lavesh vs. State (NCT of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73159 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
DelhiI) (2012) 8 SCC 730, Adri Dharan Das vs.
State of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303) and (Prem
Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar 2021 SCC
Online SCC 955) and in the case of (State of
Haryana vs. Dharamraj (Cr. Appeal No. 2635
of 2023 @ out of SLP (Cri.) No. 2256 of 2022,
reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739: 2023
INSC 784) disposed of 29.08.2023 wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:
“Anticipatory bail can be granted to a person to
a proclaimed offender only in exceptional and
rare case.” It is further submitted that the
materials available on the record do not reveal
any exceptional or rate case due to which the
plea of anticipatory bail may be considered.
Learned counsel has further relied upon the
case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 202, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide para-24 of the said
judgment has been pleased to hold that “at any
rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is
issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the
extraordinary power”.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the
petitioner having been declared a proclaimed
offender, the anticipatory bail petition is not
maintainable. Accordingly, the same is disposed
of with direction to the petitioner to surrender
before the Court below concerned within six
weeks from the date of this order and the prayer
for regular bail and the learned Court below
may consider his prayer for regular bail in
accordance with law without being prejudiced
by this order.
7. The application stands disposed
of.”
5. This application is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioners to surrender before the concerned Court below
within six weeks from the date of communication of this order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73159 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
and pray for regular bail in the Court below and the Court
below may consider his prayer for regular bail in accordance
with law or the petitioners may file an application under
Section 205 of the Cr.P.C./ 228 of the BNSS and if such an
application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance
with law.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…