Patna High Court
Himanshu SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to extend anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Himanshu Sharma, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with offences under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Earlier, the Court had ordered him to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police under Section 35 of the same Act within three weeks, which he failed to do. During the investigation, the case was found to fall under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a more serious provision. The State argued that the petitioner’s non‑compliance with the earlier order and the emergence of a graver charge precluded the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail and rejected his application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner has failed to comply with a prior court order to file a representation under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the emergence of an offence under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 137(2), 140(3), 35, 35(3), 64
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 64
- non‑compliance with court order
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76738 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2024 Thana- SATHI District- West Champaran
======================================================
Himanshu Sharma S/O Sri Radheshyam Sharma Resident of village-
Bahuarwa, P.S.- Sathi, Dist.- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sathi P.S.
Case No. 225 of 2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits earlier
petitioner had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail
by filing Cr. Misc. No.23460 of 2025 and the same came to be
disposed of by an order dated 30.04.2025 with liberty to the
petitioner to file a representation before the concerned
Superintendent of Police/Investigating Officer, in terms of
Section 35 BNSS within a period of three weeks. It is submitted
that petitioner did not file any application in terms of the order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76738 of 2025(2) dt.16-02-2026
2/3
dated 30.04.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.23460 of 2025, for reasons
best known. It is next submitted that during the course of
investigation, it also transpired subsequently that the case was
found true under Section 64 BNS.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the instant
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that earlier when
the FIR was instituted, the same was with respect to offences
which carried punishment of seven years and less, as such, the
petitioner was directed to represent before the concerned
authority within a period of three weeks from 30.04.2025 but
then petitioner instead of representing the authority within a
period of three weeks from 30.04.2025, chose to ignore the
order of this Court, and subsequently, during the course of
investigation, it transpired that Section 64 BNS is made out. It is
also submitted that had the petitioner filed a representation
before the authority concerned in terms of order dated
30.04.2025, in Cr. Misc. No.23460 of 2025, the petitioner would
have been given notice under Section 35(3) BNSS and if
subsequently based on investigation, offence under Section 64
BNS is made out, in that event, the petitioner could have again
moved this court seeking anticipatory bail, based on changed
circumstance but then the petitioner at his leisure is moving. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76738 of 2025(2) dt.16-02-2026
3/3
also submitted that investigation in the case is continuing.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…