Patna High Court
Umashankar Singh @ Uma SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Summary
Umashankar Singh, a 72‑year‑old petitioner, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC relating to alleged dacoity. He had earlier filed a similar application which was rejected, and he contended that although processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC were issued in 2001 and 2007, they were never executed, and the FIR contained incorrect address details. The petitioner argued his advanced age, clean antecedent and lack of prior arrests warranted bail, while the State opposed on grounds of possible non‑cooperation. The Court examined the non‑execution of the processes, the discrepancies in the FIR, and the petitioner’s personal circumstances, and concluded that bail could be granted with conditions. Accordingly, the Court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions and the possibility of cancellation for non‑cooperation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when processes under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC have been issued but not executed
- Whether the petitioner’s age, clean antecedent and lack of prior arrests justify anticipatory bail
- Whether discrepancies in the FIR regarding the petitioner’s address affect the grant of bail
- Whether conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC are appropriate in this case
- Whether the trial court may cancel bail if the petitioner fails to cooperate with the investigation or attempts to delay trial
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 82, 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 399, 402
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 399 IPC
- Section 402 IPC
- Section 82 CrPC
- Section 83 CrPC
- Section 438 CrPC
- age factor
- clean antecedent
- FIR discrepancy
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83226 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-1997 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Umashankar Singh @ Uma Singh, Son of Late Narayan Singh R/O Village -
Banuaara Mani Dilawarpur, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y. C. Verma- Sr. Advocate
Ms. Priyanka Singh- Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar- A.P.P.
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 09-01-2026 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer of the
case in compliance of the order dated 05.12.2025 are present in
the Court.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner had earlier moved before this Court
seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.53550 of 2025
and the same was taken up on 19.08.2025, when a specific
submission was made that petitioner is not aware whether any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83226 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
2/7
process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued or not
against him. Accordingly, the S.H.O. and the Investigating
Officer of the case were directed to remain physically present
before the Court on 25.08.2025. It is further submitted that on
25.08.2025, the learned senior counsel and the learned advocate
on record for personal reason could not appear in the Court in
Cr. Misc. No.53550 of 2025, but then, the case was taken up as
the S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer of the case in
compliance of the order dated 19.08.2025 were present.
5. It is next submitted that learned A.P.P. based on
instruction of the S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer of the
case submitted that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued
in the Year 2001 and the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was
issued in the Year 2007. It is further submitted that based on the
said submission of the learned A.P.P. and the fact that petitioner
remained unrepresented on 25.08.2025, the anticipatory bail was
considered on merit and rejected. It is next submitted that
thereafter the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application i.e.
second anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking
anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that though the
S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer of the case instructed the
learned A.P.P. to submit that process under Sections 82 and 83
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83226 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
3/7
Cr.P.C. was issued, but then, it is asserted and submitted that the
aforesaid process were not executed or else the petitioner would
have surrendered way back in the Year 2007 itself. It is
reiterated and submitted that process was never executed, as
such, petitioner never came to know about his implication in the
instant FIR which was instituted in the Year 1997. It is also
submitted that petitioner has been named in the FIR, but then,
his father name is not given nor complete address is provided
and the FIR vaguely mentioned the police station as Kesariya
without naming the district, when the petitioner is a resident of a
place which false under Kalyanpur Police Station in East
Champaran. It is further submitted that it might be a possibility
that in the FIR also, other accused were implicated and the
police in a mechanical manner implicated the petitioner.
6. It is again asserted and submitted that process
under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was never executed. It is also
submitted that petitioner is 72 years of age and is a person with
clean antecedent and in these 28 years, police never made any
endeavours to arrest him. It is also submitted that had process
under Section 83 Cr.P.C. been executed, in that event, the police
would have seized household articles, but the same was not
done. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83226 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
4/7
alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant received a
confidential information from Chaukidar Shatrughan Rai and
Ramesh Mahto on 09.08.1997 that one Gopal Tiwary along with
his associates were planning to commit dacoity at Naya Tola
Dostpur. Accordingly, on receiving the information, the raiding
team reached the place of occurrence and during the raid, one
Ram Babu Singh @ Vijay Singh was apprehended with a loaded
rifle, while the remaining accused fled and the apprehended
accused disclosed the name of his accomplices including the
petitioner. It is also submitted that had the apprehended accused
disclosed the name of the petitioner, in that event, at least the
address would have been correctly disclosed, but then, that is
not the case.
7. It is submitted that the instant case was taken up on
05.12.2025 when the aforesaid order was recorded and the
S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer of the case were directed to
remain physically present on 12.12.2025. It is submitted that on
12.12.2025, the case could not be taken up as Division Bench
was formed, hence the case was directed to be listed on
09.01.2026 and the S.H.O. and the Investigating Officer of the
case were directed to remain physically present before the
Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83226 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
5/7
8. Today, when the matter is taken up, the S.H.O. and
the Investigating Officer of the case are present in the Court and
do not dispute the submissions of the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is a resident
of a place which false under Kalyanpur P.S. in the District of
East Champaran and is not a resident of a place which false
within Kesariya Police Station. It is also submitted that no
doubt, process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were issued,
but then, the same were issued with respect to an accused who
was a resident within the Kalyanpur Police Station.
9. The S.H.O. fairly submits that process under
Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was never executed with respect to
the petitioner nor the police ever raided the house of the
petitioner which false within Kalyanpur Police Station in the
District of East Champaran. It is next submitted that case is an
old one several I.O.s have changed, but then, from perusal of the
case diary, it appears that there was confusion with regard to the
address of the petitioner as recorded in the FIR. It is also fairly
submitted that in the FIR, the petitioner is not described by his
parentage nor his address is recorded and during the course of
investigation also, the said discrepancies remained. It is also
submitted that in the event, if privilege of anticipatory bail is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83226 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
6/7
granted, in that event, the petitioner may not cooperate in the
investigation, on which the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
10. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six
weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-
bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is
pending/successor Court in connection with Sahebganj P. S.
Case No.104 of 1997, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
12. The application stands allowed.
13. However, it is made clear that in the event, if any
application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the
learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner, despite
giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the
investigation or is not presenting himself as and when required,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83226 of 2025(5) dt.09-01-2026
7/7
the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds
of the petitioner after recording reasons.
14. Further, it is made clear that in the event, if charge-
sheet is filed and the learned trial court comes to a conclusion
that petitioner after filing of charge-sheet is trying to delay the
framing of charge or after framing of charge is trying to delay
the trial in both the condition, the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the
concerned Police Station through the learned trial Court.
16. The personal appearance of the S.H.O. and the
Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.