Patna High Court
Sudhir Prasad ShahiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The issuance of a Section 82 process does not create an absolute embargo on the grant or continuation of anticipatory bail, and the application for cancellation of bail is dismissed.
Summary
The petition filed by Sudhir Prasad Shahi sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Vikramaditya Kumar in a case involving offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The bail had been ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge despite a process issued under Section 82 of the CrPC. The petitioner argued that anticipatory bail could not be entertained after such a process. The Patna High Court examined the maintainability of the cancellation application, noting the absence of any service or execution report for the Section 82 process and referring to precedents that an embargo does not automatically arise. Citing Asha Dubey v. State of M.P. (2024 SCC Online SC 5633) and Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (SLP (Crl.) No. 7940 of 2023), the Court held that anticipatory bail may still be granted if circumstances warrant. Consequently, the application for cancellation of bail was dismissed, with the bail holder directed to cooperate with the investigation and trial.
Issues considered
- Whether an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable after the issuance of a process under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted earlier is permissible in the absence of a service/execution report of the Section 82 process.
- Whether the facts and circumstances of the case justify the continuation of the anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 82 CrPC
- bail cancellation
- maintainability
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74940 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3779 Year-2023 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Sudhir Prasad Shahi S/o- Sri Diwakar Shahi @ Sri Diwakar Prasad Shahi
Village- Rajkhand, P.S.- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Vikramaditya Kumar @ Vikram Aditya Kumar S/o- Late Chandra Shekhar
Sah @ Late Chandeshwar Sah R/v- Mednipur Ps- nanpur Dist- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P for the State.
2. The present application for cancellation of bail
granted to Opposite Party No. 2 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-12th, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 23.07.2025
passed in A.B.P No. 1443 of 2025 arising out of Complaint
Case No. 3779 of 2023 registered for the offences under
Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC has been pressed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner primarily on the ground that
the prayer for anticipatory bail itself was not maintainable after
issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.
3. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74940 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
2/5
23.07.2025, it would be apparent that the order passed by the
learned court below is not one which has overlooked the
factum of the Section 82 Cr.P.C process having been issued and
is rather well reasoned order taking into view even other facts
of the case relating to dispute arising out of business
transactions which could be thrashed out at an appropriate
stage in trial. Objection raised with regard to the
maintainability issue, has been taken note of by the learned
court concerned and also considering the submissions made on
behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, who was the petitioner in
the bail proceedings, the learned court has recorded in clear
terms that no service report/execution report of any processes
including the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C issued
earlier against the petitioner ( the present Opposite Party No.2)
was available on the record which could have gone to show
that the petitioner had any knowledge about the case from
before and that he was evading such processes. The impugned
order also talks about the proposition of law that processes
issued in the absence of service report/execution report of the
earlier processes cannot be termed proper and legal.
4. After considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74940 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
3/5
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this court is of
the view that the order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-12th, Muzaffarpur is a well reasoned one which
has considered not only the merits of the case for the purposes
of grant of anticipatory bail but also has considered the issue of
maintainability of the application in wake of issuance of
process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C and a reference in this
regard may be had to the case of Asha Dubey vs State of M.P.
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 5633, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court clearly enunciates the proposition that there is no
complete embargo upon consideration of anticipatory bail after
processes under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C are issued and there
are several other attending facts and circumstances which are to
be taken into consideration. At this stage, this Court would
gainfully refer to para 8 & 9 of the case of Asha Dubey
(supra):-
8. Coming to the consideration of
anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration
under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in
all cases that there will be a total embargo on
considering the application for the grant of
anticipatory bail.
9. When the liberty of the appellant is
pitted against, this Court will have to see the
circumstances of the case, nature of the
offence and the background based on which
such a proclamation was issued. Suffice it is to
state that it is a fit case for grant of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74940 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
4/5
anticipatory bail, on the condition that the
appellant shall cooperate with the further
investigation. However, liberty is also given to
the respondents to seek cancellation of bail
that has been granted, in the event of a
violation of the conditions which are to be
imposed by the Trial Court or if there are any
perceived threats against the witnesses.
5. As a matter of fact, even in the very recent case of
Srikant Upadhyay Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. being Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7940 of 2023 there is a scope left
open for grant of anticipatory bail even after the process of
Section 82 of the Cr.P.C has been issued when such a situation
arises. In the particular case at hand, the order clearly indicates
that there has been no service report or execution report of any
processes including the process of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C
which would lead this Court to believe that the Opposite Party
no.2 despite having knowledge of the processes having been
issued against him was still trying to evade the processes of
law. Besides the present issue of maintainability, there is no
other ground of any suppression of fact or any other
supervening circumstance or perversity in the order granting
anticipatory bail and hence this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the order granting anticipatory and in such view
of the matter, the present application for cancellation of bail
stands dismissed. However, the O.P. No. 2 is directed to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74940 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
5/5
cooperate with investigation and trial and in event of violation
of conditions imposed by the trial court, or in case of any
perceived threats against witnesses, the petitioner would be at
liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
6. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed
with the aforementioned observations.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…