Patna High Court - Orders
Sahil Raj @ Tis vs The State Of Bihar on 7 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53291 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2024 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Bishal Kumar @ Vishal Kumar (Male), aged about 19 years, son of Ashok
Prasad, resident of village-Parao, P.S.- Bihta, District-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 56481 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2024 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Sahil Raj @ Tis (Male), aged about 19 years, S/O Harendra Singh, resident of
village Nathmalpur, P.S.-Barahara, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 53291 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Dular Sah, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 56481 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
3 07-02-2025A show cause letter has been submitted by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Ara, Bhojpur vide Letter No. 32 dated 29.08.2024 and District and Sessions Judge, Ara, Bhojpur vide Letter no. 3813 of 2024 dated 10.09.2024 explaining non-compliance with this Court's order dated 23.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28093 of 2024 and order dated 20.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.32130 of 2024 whereby the Court directed the petitioners to be released on bail Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2024(3) dt.07-02-2025 2/7 after framing of charge by furnishing bail bonds. The Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Ara, Bhojpur has relied upon the judgments of Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand [2019] 8 S.C.R. 824 and Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 474 to explain refusal to permit the petitioners to furnish bail bonds. In Pradeep Ram (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at following conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non- bailable offences are added:-
(i) The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-
bailable offences. In event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested.
(ii) The investigating agency can seek order from the court under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for arrest of the accused and his custody.
(iii) The Court, in exercise of power under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C., can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.
(iv) In a case where an accused has already Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2024(3) dt.07-02-2025 3/7 been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it need to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail."
2. In Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and Others( supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
It is important to note that no order adverse to the accused respondents had been passed by any Court nor there was any miscarriage of justice or any illegality. In such circumstances, the High Court committed manifest error of law in entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and issuing a direction to the subordinate court to accept the sureties and bail bonds for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The effect of the order passed by the High Court is that the accused after getting bail in an offence under Section 324, 352 and 506 IPC on the very day on which they were taken into custody, got an order of bail in their favour even after the injured had succumbed to his injuries and the case had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC without any Court examining the case on merits, as it stood after conversion of the offence. The procedure laid down for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., though available to the accused respondents, having not been availed of, the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is clearly illegal and the impugned order passed by it has to be set aside.
3. In the landmark judgment of Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 358, the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2024(3) dt.07-02-2025 4/7 Full Court Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"It must, however be made clear that a Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by the High Court unless new circumstances "rise during the progress of the trial after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High Court."
4. In the case of Mander Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 12693, the Punjab and Haryana High Court laid down the following:
II. Plea seeking cancellation of Regular Bail.
(i) A High Court has power to cancel regular bail granted by itself or by a Sessions Court or by a Magistrate's Court.
(ii) A Sessions Court has a power to cancel regular bail granted by High Court or by itself or by a Magistrate's Court. However, the Sessions Court can cancel regular bail granted by High Court only where the accused has violated any condition(s) imposed by the High Court (while granting bail) or on account of such accused having misused liberty granted to him by trying to influence witness(s) or having tried to delay trial by absenting himself or having committed another offence(s) while on bail and other factors of akin nature. In other words, a Sessions Court can cancel bail granted to an accused by High Court only on account of such like supervening/ subsequent events but cannot adjudicate upon veracity of the High Court order (whereby bail was granted to such accused.) Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2024(3) dt.07-02-2025 5/7
5. The High Court of Bombay in the case titled Devi Das Raghu Nath Naik v. State, (Crimes Volume 3 1987
363), has observed as under:
The above view of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court appears to me to be correct. In fact, it is now well-settled that there is no bar whatsoever for a party to approach either the High Court or the Sessions Court with an application for an ordinary bail made under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The power given by Section 439 to the High Court or to the Sessions Court is an independent power and thus, when the High Court acts in the exercise of such power it does not exercise any revisional jurisdiction, but its original special jurisdiction to grant bail. This being so, it becomes obvious that although under section 439 Cr.P.C. concurrent jurisdiction is given to the High Court and Sessions Court, the fact, that the Sessions Court has refused a bail under Section 439 does not operate as a bar for the High Court entertaining a similar application under Section 439 on the same facts and for the same offence. However, if the choice was made by the party to move first the High Court and the High Court has dismissed the application, then the decorum and the hierarchy of the Courts require that if the Sessions Court is moved with a similar application on the same fact, the said application be dismissed. This can be inferred also from the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh's case (above)."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2024(3) dt.07-02-2025 6/7
6. Seriousness of the offence should not to be treated as the only ground for refusal of bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 830 has observed that:
"No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet."
7. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ara, Bhojpur stated that the charges under Sections 395, 412, 414, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code were framed on 05.06.2024 after this Court allowed the bail petition on 23.04.2024. In lieu of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts, I don't find enough reasons for non-compliance with this court's order from the show cause letter submitted by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Ara, Bhojpur and thus the show cause submitted vide Letter No. 32 dated 29.08.2024 is not accepted. Further the concerned officer is directed to show cause within 30 days from receipt of a copy of this order as to why the matter should not be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53291 of 2024(3) dt.07-02-2025 7/7 referred for taking disciplinary action against him for non- compliance with this Court's Order.
8. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned officer immediately and also to the Principal Sessions Judge, Bhojpur for needful action.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/-
U T