Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Shashikant UpadhyayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Shashikant Upadhyay, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case (PS Nautan Case No.148 of 2025) alleging assault under several sections of the B.N.S. He had previously filed an anticipatory bail application (Cr. Misc. No.44966 of 2025) which was withdrawn on 28 July 2025. After withdrawing the first application, he filed a second anticipatory bail petition before the Patna High Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that a second application cannot be entertained after a withdrawal. The Court held that once an anticipatory bail application is withdrawn, the petitioner cannot re‑file another for the same offence. Consequently, the second anticipatory bail application was dismissed as not maintainable.

Issues considered

  • Whether a second anticipatory bail application is maintainable after the petitioner has withdrawn a prior anticipatory bail application in the same case

Legislation cited

  • B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 118, 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 352

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • withdrawal of application
  • maintainability
  • criminal procedure
  • high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88032 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2025 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Shashikant Upadhyay S/O Brajkishor Upadhyay Resident of Vill- Mangalpur
                 Kala, P.S.- Nautan, Dist- West Champaran

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s           :        Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s       :        Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   16-01-2026                  Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional

                   Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 148 of 2025, F.I.R. dated

                   01.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2) /

                   115(2)/118/109/303(2)/352/3(5) of the B.N.S.

                                3. According to prosecution case, petitioner and other

                   co-accused persons are alleged to have assaulted the informant

                   and his brother. The specific allegation of assault is against the

                   petitioner who hit on the head of the informant by means of iron

                   rod with intention to kill and the informant fell down.

                                4. Earlier, the petitioner has moved before this Court

                   for grant of anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 44966 of 2025 but
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88032 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
                                                        2/2




                      the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

                      28.07.2025.

                                   5. After withdrawal of the first anticipatory bail

                      application, the petitioner has again approached this Hon’ble

                      Court for grant of anticipatory bail. However, once the

                      petitioner has withdrawn his anticipatory bail application, there

                      is no occasion to entertain his second anticipatory bail

                      application.

                                   6. Hence, the second anticipatory bail application of

                      the petitioner is not maintainable and dismissed accordingly.


                                                     (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

Ranjeet/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.