Mohammad Raja vs The State Of Bihar on 17 September, 2025

[Cites 37, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Mohammad Raja vs The State Of Bihar on 17 September, 2025

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. C 2214 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by the complainant Fiza Praveen.

3. Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 through both processes i.e. ordinary as well as registered cover with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed within a period of two weeks failing which the application shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench.

4. In case, the order passed is not complied and the matter accordingly stands dismissed, subsequently, the same be posted under the heading 'To be Mentioned'.

5. In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. C Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 2/51 2214 of 2024.

6. Having passed the order, this Court has taken note of the the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in the present case and would like to incorporate the concluding part of the said order which read as follows:

This is an anticipatory bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused, namely, Mohammad Raja, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Trial No.4415 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-2214 of 2024, for the offence U/S 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Having heard both sides and perusal of the certified copy of the complaint petition, it appears that this case is based on complaint petition and vide summoning order dated 11-04- 2025 passed by learned court below a prima facie case U/S 498-A of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner-accused, which is punishable within Seven years Imprisonment.

Hence, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 3/51 Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar..

Vs.. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and M.A. No. 2034 of 2022 in M.A. No. 1849 in S.L.P. (Cri) No. 5 91 of 2021 titled Satyendra Kumar Antil..Vs.. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, this anticipatory bail petition filed on behalf of the above named petitioner-accused is disposed of.

However, if the petitioner-accused surrenders before the learned court below and seeks regular bail, the learned court below shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, keeping in view the facts and circumstances without being prejudiced by this order.

(emphasis added)

7. The background of the passing of the aforesaid order by the learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari has/have to be recorded hereinbelow:

8. While hearing with a case related to Palanwa P.S. Case No. 175 of 2022 registered under sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 448, 379, 504, 506 and 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code, the coordinate Bench of Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 4/51 3536 of 2024 (Naushad Ansari vs. The State of Bihar) on 13.02.2024 held as follows:

3. The learned APP, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, at the outset, submits that the offences for which Palanawa P.S Case No. 175 of 2022 has been instituted against the petitioner carries punishment of less than 7 years. It is further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. the State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 has laid down the guidelines that how the police and the learned Magistrate have to act in respect of offences, which carry punishment of 7 years or less than 7 years.

4. The learned APP next submits that offences in India are categorized by the Cr.P.C as cognizable and non-cognizable, bailable and non-bailable, for a cognizable offence, the police registers an FIR and arrests the accused without a warrant, if offence is bailable, the police must release the accused upon a reasonable security, if the offence is non-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 5/51 bailable, only court can order release on bail. It is next submitted that police high-handedness in making arrests and a sluggish magistracy in remanding accused to judicial custody have been a source of concern to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar vs. the State of UP and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 emphasized that simply because the police have the power to make arrest does not mean that an arrest should be made rather the power of arrest should be exercised only as a necessity given the paramountcy of liberty in our constitutional scheme. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 issued a continuous mandamus on the mode and manner of arrest.

5. It is further submitted that the iteration of these principles in judgment after judgment prompted various amendments to Chapter 5 of the Cr.P.C, which deals with arrest Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 6/51 by police while investigating cognizable offences.

6. It is submitted that Section 41 of the Cr.P.C was amended in the year 2009 to divide the non-bailable and cognizable cases where police have the power to arrest into two categories -- those carrying imprisonment of seven years or less falls under Section 41(b) of the Cr.P.C to be dealt differently by those carrying a term higher than seven years, which comes under Section 41(b)(a).

7. As per Section 41(b) Cr.P.C, offences punishable with seven years or less are not to automatically lead to arrest, rather before making arrest in such a case, a police officer is required to record his satisfaction that the arrest is necessary to prevent the accused from absconding, repeating the offence or tampering with the evidence, where an arrest is not necessary for these reasons, it shall be recorded that the accused has not been arrested and instead a notice under Section 41(a) of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 7/51 Cr.P.C shall be issued requiring the accused to appear before the police and aid the investigation and it is obligatory for the accused to comply with the notice, if there is compliance, there is statutory protection from arrest, if there is non-compliance, or there are compelling reasons for arrest, the fact must be recorded in writing and subject to orders passed by a court of competent jurisdiction, an arrest be made. It is further submitted that the statute emphasizes on recording of reasons so that the Magistrate before whom the accused is produced after arrest, examines the necessity of arrest and continued custody. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, held before a Magistrate authorizes detention under Section 167 Cr.P.C, he has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person arrested are satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 8/51 Section 41 of Cr.P.C, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorize his further detention and release the accused. In other words, when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, the police officer effecting the arrest is required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, the reasons and its conclusion for arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be satisfied that condition precedent for arrest under Section 41 Cr.P.C has been satisfied and it is only thereafter he will authorize the detention of an accused. The Magistrate before authorizing detention will record its own satisfaction, may be in brief but the satisfaction must reflect from its order. It shall never be based upon the ipse dixit of the police officer, for example, in case the police officer considers the arrest necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence or for proper investigation of the case or for preventing an accused from tampering with evidence or making inducement etc, the police officer shall furnish to the Magistrate the facts, the reasons and the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 9/51 materials on the basis of which the police officer had reached its conclusion. Those shall be perused by the Magistrate while authorizing the detention and only after recording its satisfaction in writing that the Magistrate will authorize the detention of the accused, when a suspect is arrested and produced before a Magistrate for authorizing detention, the Magistrate has to address the question whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima facie those reasons are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above are attracted.

8. It is further submitted that with regard to Section 41 of the Cr.P.C the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the aforesaid provision

-- makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C, the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 10/51 obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of the notice, he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that arrest is necessary.

9. The learned APP further submits that when an accused is first produced before the learned Magistrate in relation to offences carrying punishment of seven years or less, must be released, if the preconditions of Section 41 of the Cr.P.C are not met, i.e., the learned Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind whether to remand or not to remand the accused to judicial custody and will not be swayed by the claim of the police officer arresting the accused. It is next submitted that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Asfak Alam vs. the State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 583 set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court rejecting the anticipatory Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 11/51 bail application of the husband (Md. Asfak Alam) for reasons stated in the order and at the same time directed all the courts ceased of proceeding to strictly follow the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and reiterated the direction contained therein as well as other directions, which are as follows:-

"1.11.Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to, ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions:

11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;

11.2. All police officers be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 12/51 provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)

(b)(ii);

11.3. The police officer- shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 13/51 11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing:

11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

11.8. Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the case under Section 498-A IPC or Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 14/51 Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a terms which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine."

II. The High Court shall frame the above directions in the form of notifications and guidelines to be followed by the Sessions courts and all other and criminal courts dealing with various offences.

III. Likewise, the Director General of Police in all States shall ensure that strict instructions in terms of above directions are issued. Both the High Courts and the DGP's of all States shall ensure that such guidelines and Directives/Departmental Circulars are issued for guidance of all lower courts and police authorities in each State within eight weeks from today.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 15/51 IV. Affidavits of compliance shall be filed before this court within ten weeks by all the states and High Courts, though their Registrars.

10. The learned APP next submits that the Hon'ble Patna High Court in compliance of the order passed in Md. Asfak Alam vs. the State of Jharkhand (supra) issued Memo No. 62973 dated 19.9.2023 wherein it was recorded that all the courts under territorial jurisdiction of this court shall be required to follow the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar versus the State of Bihar (supra) and the following direction contained in the said decision:

11.1 "All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.;

11.2 All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 16/51 under Section 41 (1) (b)(ii):

11.3 The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention:

11.4 The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the Police Officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

11.5 The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

11.6 Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 17/51 Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing:

11.7 Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High court having territorial jurisdiction.

11.8 Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

12. We hasten to add that directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the cased in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a terms which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine."

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 18/51

11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite such direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recorded hereinabove, the police mechanically are making arrests in cases involving punishment of seven years or less and the learned Magistrates in casual manner are remanding the accused persons in judicial custody, which can well be appreciated from the fact that this court is burdened with anticipatory bail application with regard to offences carrying punishment of seven years or less, the present application is one of them.

12. After hearing the learned APP and the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction that the concerned Superintendent of Police of every district and investigating officers of the case shall forthwith comply with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as contained in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Md. Asfak Alam Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 19/51 (supra).

13. It is made clear that if any breach of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is brought to the notice of this court, the police and the learned Magistrate shall be dealt in terms of the Memo No. 62973 dated 19-9-2023 issued by this Court under the signature of the learned Registrar General.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the DGP, Bihar, Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Bihar and all the learned District Judges for its onward communication to all the Superintendents of Police, Investigating Officers and the learned Magistrates.

15. The Court directs that the police and the learned Magistrate shall completely adhere to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Md. Asfak Alam (supra).

16. The Court for the present is not seeking any report from the police or the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 20/51 learned District Judges with regard to compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as recorded in the Memo dated 19.09.2023 issued by the leanred Registrar General of this Court, but in the event, if it is found that anticipatory bail application with respect to offences involving punishment of seven years and less is flooding the court, in that event, in an appropriate case, report would be called from the authorities and the learned District Judges and in the event if it is found that lackadaisical approach has been adopted at the end of the Police or the learned Magistrate, in that event, proper action would be initiated, in terms of paragraphs 11.7 and 11.8 of the Memo No. 62973/AD (Rules) dated 19.09.2023, issued by the learned Registrar General of this Court.

(emphasis added)

9. Some of Judgeship in the State of Bihar thereafter started disposing of the anticipatory bail application where the punishment is within the seven years. The present case is one of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 21/51 the such where the anticipatory bail application has been disposed of.

10. Thereafter, came the order dated 08.08.2025 of another coordinate Bench of Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 38822 of 2025 (Navneet Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar) wherein following observation made:

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Phenhara P.S. Case No.51 of 2025, dated-

14.03.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the Petitioner first moved the Court of Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari by way of anticipatory bail petition bearing no. 1523 of 2025, which was disposed of by learned Sessions Judge in terms of the observation made by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Asha Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 22/51 Baitha vs. State of Bihar bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.44659 of 2024 as reported in 2024 SCC Online Pat 5670. The observation made in Asha Baitha case (supra) is as follows:

"The petitioner would be at liberty to file a representation within a period of three weeks from today before the concerned Superintendent of Police of the district and the Investigating Officer of the case with a web copy of the order dated 13.02.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 3536/2024 (Naushad Ansari Vs. State of Bihar) and the Superintendent of Police shall ensure that Investigating Officer of the case strictly adhere to the direction contained in the said order."

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely implicated in this case. He should have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, instead of referring him to the police to represent.

6. Even, learned APP for the State and learned Amici Curiae also submit that there was no justification of abdication of duty on the part of the Sessions Court, who instead of deciding the bail petition, has only disposed it of by giving him liberty to represent to the police.

7. I considered the submissions of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 23/51 learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned Amici Curiae and perused the materials on record.

8. I find that the anticipatory bail petition bearing no. 1523 of 2025 was filed by the Petitioner before learned Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail. However, the same has been only disposed of without rejecting or allowing the prayer of the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, and, instead, he has been given liberty to make representation within a period of three weeks to the concerned Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer of the case, with a web copy of the order dated 13.02.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3536 of 2024 titled Naushad Ansari Vs. State of Bihar, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. The Superintendent of Police has been also directed to ensure that the Investigating Officer of the case strictly adheres to the direction contained in the said order.

9. I further find that in Naushad Ansari case (supra), the operative part of the order is as Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 24/51 follows:

"12. After hearing the learned APP and the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction that the concerned Superintendent of Police of every district and investigating officers of the case shall forthwith comply with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as contained in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Md. Asfak Alam (supra).

13. It is made clear that if any breach of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is brought to the notice of this court, the police and the learned Magistrate shall be dealt in terms of the Memo No. 62973 dated 19.9.2023 issued by this Court under the signature of the learned Registrar General.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the DGP, Bihar, Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Bihar and all the learned District Judges for its onward communication to all the Superintendents of Police, Investigating Officers and the learned Magistrates.

15. The Court directs that the police and the learned Magistrate shall completely adhere to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Md. Asfak Alam (supra)."

10. I further find that Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 has issued the following directions to the Police and Judicial Magistrate:

"11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 25/51 do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions:

11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;

11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; 11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 26/51 police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. 11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine."

11. I further find that the direction given by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar case (supra) has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand as reported in (2023) 8 SCC 632. The direction reads as follows:

"16. The impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing the appellant, to surrender and later seek bail, therefore, cannot stand, and is hereby set aside. Before parting, the Court would direct all the courts seized of proceedings to strictly follow the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and reiterate the directions contained thereunder, as well as other directions.

16.1.(I) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 27/51 "11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrates do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions:

11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-

AIPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41CrPC;

11.2. All police officers be provided with a checklist containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

11.3. The police officer shall forward the checklist duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; 11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-ACrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 28/51 recorded in writing;

11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-AIPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine."

16.2.(II) The High Court shall frame the above directions in the form of notifications and guidelines to be followed by the Sessions Courts and all other and criminal courts dealing with various offences.

16.3.(III) Likewise, the Director General of Police in all States shall ensure that strict instructions in terms of the above directions are issued. Both the High Courts and the DGPs of all States shall ensure that such guidelines and Directives/Departmental Circulars are issued for guidance of all lower courts and police authorities in each State within eight weeks from today. 16.4.(IV) Affidavits of compliance shall be filed before this Court within ten weeks by all the States and High Courts, through their Registrars."

(emphasis added)

12. However, it is pertinent to note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Case Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 29/51 (supra) and Mohd. Asfak Alam case (supra) has nowhere held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable in view of Section 41A Cr.PC (Equivalent Section 35 of B.N.S.S.). In fact, in both the cases Hon'ble Apex Court has granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioners, besides issuing directions to the police and Judicial Magistrate against unnecessary and arbitrary arrest and illegal remand in offence punishable up to seven years of imprisonment.

13. I also find that learned Coordinate Bench of this Court has also nowhere held in Naushad Ansari Case (supra) that the anticipatory bail petition under Section 438, Cr.PC/Section 482 B.N.S.S. is not maintainable in view of the provisions as provided under Section 41A, Cr.PC/Section 35, B.N.S.S.

14. However, learned coordinate Bench of this Court was concerned with the violation of the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Case (supra) and Mohd. Asfak Alam case (supra) by the police and Judicial Magistrates Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 30/51 leading to unnecessary and arbitrary arrest and remand in offence punishable up to seven years of imprisonment, resulting into flood of bail applications before the Sessions Court as well as this Court. Hence, he has strictly directed the police and Judicial Magistrates to comply with the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as given in Arnesh Kumar Case (supra) and Mohd. Asfak Alam case (supra).

15. However, I find that in view of Nausad Ansari case (supra) the impression is doing round in District Judiciary that in view of Section 41A Cr.PC/Section 35, B.N.S.S., anticipatory bail petitions are not required to be decided, if they are filed before the Court of Sessions and the Court is only required to refer the Petitioners to the police for representation, and it is due to this impression that the impugned order has been passed by learned Sessions Judge in the case on hand. Such impression is urgently required to be dispelled, otherwise, such impression would render the provisions for pre- Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 31/51 arrest bail otiose and nugatory, jeopardizing the life and liberty of the people by making it dependent upon the discretion of the police. This is not permissible under our constitutional scheme and statutory provisions.

18. If the Courts which are vested with jurisdiction to hear pre-arrest bail petitions, shut their doors and refer the petitioners to Police to get relief under Sections 41 and 41A of the Cr.PC, it would be a dooms day for the right of the people to life and liberty. Such closure of doors would blow a death knell to the edifice created against curtailment of liberty without necessity.

19. It is also equally important to point out that the Parliament has also trusted the Police to conduct proper investigation without unnecessarily curtailing the liberty of the people facing accusation. They have been given discretionary power to arrest under certain circumstances without warrant from Judicial Magistrate as stipulated under Section 41 of the Cr.PC, but Parliament had expected that our Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 32/51 Police would be sensitive to the fact that right to arrest is one thing but necessity to exercise such right is another and they would not misuse their discretionary power of arrest without legal necessity. As a matter of guidance, the Parliament has subsequently inserted 41A into the Cr.PC for guidance to the Police how to avoid unnecessary arrest of the accused and what procedure should be followed to complete the investigation under such circumstances. But unfortunately, it has been found that the Police is not working to the expectation of the legislature. Even the Judicial Magistrates are failing in their duty to prevent illegal detention by authorizing unnecessary arrests by passing remand orders casually and mechanically. They are not refusing remand even in deserving cases. Hence, Hon'ble Apex Court was constrained to issue a direction to the Police and Judicial Magistrates in Arnesh Kumar case (supra) in the context of Section 41A Cr.PC and same has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam case (supra).

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 33/51

20. The misuse of discretionary power by the Police to arrest without warrant and dereliction of duty on the part of the Judicial Magistrates in regard to remand of the accused persons has led to flooding of Courts with pre- arrest and post arrest bail petitions, because people apprehending arbitrary arrest by the Police are rushing to the Courts by way of anticipatory bail petitions and those who are arbitrarily arrested are filing regular bail petitions. The result is that District Courts as well as the Constitutional Courts, including Hon'ble Apex Court, are flooded with bail petitions, clogging the justice delivery system. If the Police come to the expectation of the Parliament and avoid unnecessary arrest, and Judicial Magistrates exercise their right to remand properly, this problem of flood of bail petitions would heavily come down, and it could have been a great service to our society by making the judiciary free of unnecessary litigations. Hence, the Police and the Judicial Magistrates are expected to follow the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 34/51 Kumar case (supra) and Md. Asfak Alam case (supra) in true letter and spirit of the directions. On their failure to comply with the directions, even Contempt Proceedings may be initiated.

21. Now coming back to the statutory provisions regarding the pre-arrest bail and Section 41A Cr.PC/ Section 35 of B.N.S.S., it is pertinent to point out that Section 438 Cr.PC/Section 482 B.N.S.S. provides for pre- arrest bail and the accused are given right to move Sessions Court or High Court if they are apprehending arrest in face of accusation and in such situation, the competent Courts are empowered to grant or refuse anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

22. However, Section 41(1)(b) Cr.PC deal with power of the police to arrest without warrant from Judicial Magistrate in case of cognizable offence punishable up to seven years of imprisonment subject to the conditions as provided therein. It is also provided therein if the police is satisfied that such arrest is necessary in view of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 35/51 situations as mentioned therein, the police is required to record the reasons in writing for such arrest. However, when the police is satisfied that arrest is not necessary, the police is required to follow the procedure as provided under Section 41A Cr.PC which has been introduced in the year, 2009 by way of amendment. As per Section 41A, the police is required to issue notice to the accused, directing him to appear before him at such places as specified by the police and in the event of such notice being issued to the accused, it is duty of the accused to comply with the terms of the notice and if the accused complies and continues to comply with the notice, he is not required to be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for the reasons to be recorded by the police, the police opines that the accused is to be arrested. In the event of non-compliance of the terms of the notice and unwillingness of the accused to identify himself, the police is again empowered to arrest the accused for the offence as mentioned in the notice. Even otherwise, under Section 170 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 36/51 Cr.PC/190 of the B.N.S.S., the police is empowered to take the accused in custody after completion of the investigation if evidence is found to be sufficient to forward him to the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

23. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 41A Cr.PC/35 of the B.N.S.S. and Section 170 Cr.PC/190 of the B.N.S.S., apprehension of arrest to the accused never vanishes completely, even if notice is issued by the Police and all the conditions of the notice are complied with by the accused. Hence, the pre requisite for filing pre-arrest bail petition is always available to such accused to move competent Courts under Section 438 Cr.PC/482 B.N.S.S. Hence, anticipatory bail petition is maintainable despite the provisions of Section 41A Cr.PC/35 of the B.N.S.S., even if police gives notice to the accused in the event of his opinion that the arrest is not necessary for completing the investigation. This is the reason, this Court has consistently held that the anticipatory bail Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 37/51 petitions are maintainable despite the provisions of Section 41A Cr.PC/35 of the B.N.S.S. Here one may refer to Gauri Shankar Roy v. State of Bihar, 2015 SCC OnLine Pat 2165 (2015) 3 PLJR 618 wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows:

"40. Hence, a person gets apprehension of being arrested in two situations:- firstly when a 'Notice' is issued to him under Section 41A(1) of the Code and secondly, after complying the terms of 'Notice' the police officer forms an opinion that such person ought to be arrested or in a situation, such person fails to comply the terms of 'Notice' or is unwilling to 'identify' himself.

41. In view of this Court, in all the above three situations such person can maintain an anticipatory bail application as Section 41A of the Code does not stipulate the specific condition of notice of appearance. To take a contrary view (police bail) will give a long rope to the police to deprive any person to avail the remedy under Section 438 of the Code.

........................................................................ ..............

44. Section 41A of the Code operates in a situation where there is no arrest and prescribes the course of option to be adopted by a police officer in case he decides not to arrest any person. Till the time any person is not arrested, he is entitled to maintain an application for grant of anticipatory bail subject to, of course, the applicability of any other law to the contrary.

........................................................................ ........... 46. If the logic of non-

maintainability of anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the score is to be accepted, then startling anomaly resulting in serious consequences would arise and virtually Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. will become otiose Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 38/51 because in all cognizable cases either there has to be arrest or there has to be no arrest or there has to be a notice by the police officer. In case there is arrest, jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is automatically ousted and in case of non arrest, the requirement of notice is there and if issuance of notice and appearing in pursuance thereof is deemed to be in police custody, then also Section 438 Cr.P.c. would be ousted. This can certainly never be the legitimate interpretation of the scope of Section 41A Cr.P.C."

(Emphasis suppled.)

24. The same view was reiterated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sona Kunwar v. State of Bihar as reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 45 holding as follows:-

"6. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in Gauri Shankar Roy v. State of Bihar, since reported in (2015) 3 PLJR 618, this Court has already held that if a person has appeared upon notice issued to him under Section 41-A(1) of the Cr.P.C and when the police officer forms an opinion that such person ought not be arrested, the apprehension of arrest does not completely vanish and under such circumstances, an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C would be maintainable. He further contended that since the ingredients of the offence punishable under the Act are not attracted against the appellants, Section 18 of the Act would not be a bar for maintainability of an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C."

(Emphasis supplied.)

25. Similar view has been taken by Karnataka High Court in Sri. Ramappa @ Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 39/51 Ramesh Vs. the State of Karnataka through Range Forest Officer, Bagalkote. In this case also, notice under Section 41A Cr.PC was issued to the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner had not appeared before the police and he had filed anticipatory bail petition before the High Court. Here, Karnataka High Court has held as follows:-

"18. The conclusion which emerges from the conjoint reading of Section 41 and 41A of the Code is as follows : In connection with allegation of commission of offence punishable up to 7 years with or without fine, the Police Officer can arrest

- (i) only if he has reasons to believe regarding commission of the offence by the person concerned, coupled with (ii) the existence of one or more of the circumstances provided in the Section rendering arrest necessary.

19. In case the Police Officer decides not to arrest, he has to record the reasons to that effect and thereafter is mandatorily required to issue notice to the person concerned under Section 41A(1). The notice is required to comply with the terms of the notice and till the time the notice observes and adheres to the undertaking under the notice, he shall not be arrested unless for the reasons to be recorded, the Police Officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. The use of word 'shall in Section 41 A(1) of the Code reflects that the provision is mandatory in nature.

20. Where there is any failure on the part of the notices to comply with the terms of the notice, it is always incumbent upon the Police Officer to arrest the notice subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf. The use of the term 'subject to such orders is of significance as the legislature is not expected to waste the words or use them casually without Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 40/51 any intention of a specific interpretation being given to them. The term subject to such orders as may have been passed refers to orders relating to grant of anticipatory bail which the notice may have obtained interregnum the issuance of notice and before actual arrest.

21.1. Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. which was inserted by Act 5 of 2009 was made effective from 01.11.2010 and was introduced by the Legislature for purposes of giving notice of appearance to a person who's arrest is not required under provisions of Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C., directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or creditable information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the Notice.

21.2. Under Section 41A (2) of the Code the person concerned to whom the Notice has been issued is duty bound to comply with the terms of notice.

21.3. Section 41A (3) stipulates about the person who complies with the Notice, shall not be arrested unless for reasons recorded by the Police that he ought to be arrested and one of such contingencies when such person can be arrested as stipulated udder Section 41A (4) which prescribes the arrest of such person if he fails to comply the terms of Notice or is unwilling to identify himself if then the Police Officer subject to such orders as may have been parsed by a competent Court, may arrest him for the offences mentioned in the Notice.

22. Hence, a person gets apprehension of being arrested in two situations:-- firstly when a 'Notice' is issued to him under Section 41A (1) of the Code and secondly, after complying the terms of 'Notice' the police officer forms an opinion that such person ought to be arrested or in a situation, such person fails to comply the terms of 'Notice' or is unwilling to 'identify' himself.

23. In all the above three situations such person can maintain an anticipatory bail application as Section 41A of the Code does not stipulate the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 41/51 specific condition of notice of appearance.

24. Section 41A of the Code operates in a situation where there is no arrest and prescribes the course of option to be adopted by a police officer in case he decides not to arrest any person. Till the time any person is not arrested, he is entitled to maintain an application for grant of anticipatory bail subject to, of course, the applicability of any other law to the contrary.

25. Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. defers the arrest until and unless sufficient evidence is collected, so as to produce or forward the accused to the custody of the Court. The apprehension of arrest, thus, does not completely vanish away on the issuance of notice of appearance under Section 41 A of the Cr.P.C., and hence, the question being raised in maintainability of an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., during the pendency of notice being issued under Section 41A Cr.P.C. or during the compliance of the terms of such notice, is completely unwarranted and is not in tune with the provisions of law. The apprehension of arrest always does exist even after issuance of notice of appearance under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and under such circumstance the Courts cannot evade to entertain an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C."

(Emphasis supplied.)

26. In Pinapala Uday Bhushan vs State of AP (2024 SCC OnLine AP 790) High Court of Andhra Pradesh has also held that apprehension of arrest exists even after issuance of notice under Section 41A Cr.PC.

Present case Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 42/51

27. Now coming to the case on hand, I find that the Petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act for which maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences is up to seven years of imprisonment. It also transpires that even notice was not received by the Petitioner from the police under Section 41A Cr.PC/35 of B.N.S.S., and hence, he had moved the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, but the same has been disposed of only by giving liberty to the Petitioner to represent to the police. It also transpires that the Petitioner had not previously moved any similar application before the Sessions Court or this Court and he has also no criminal antecedent and it is claimed by the Petitioner that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated.

28. In such circumstances, the Petitioner should have been allowed pre-arrest bail subject to the conditions as may have been stipulated by Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 43/51 Sessions Court.

29. Hence, the manner of disposal of the anticipatory bail petition by the Sessions Court is no way justified. In fact, he has abdicated his duty as enjoined under Section 438 Cr.PC/482 of the B.N.S.S. This is nothing less than dereliction of duty as judicial officer holding office of the highest Court at the District level.

30. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named, to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned concerned Court below, in connection with Phenhara P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and on the following conditions:

(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 44/51 the court below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the same.

(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

31. The assistance as provided by learned Amici Curiae, Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate and Shri Anil Singh, Advocate is highly appreciated. The Secretary, Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to pay honorarium of Rs.7,000/- each to both of the Amici Curiae.

32. Learned Registrar General is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment amongst all the Judicial Officers of Bihar District Judiciary and a copy of this Judgment be also sent to the Director, Bihar Judicial Academy to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 45/51 discuss it in the training programmes for the Judicial Officers.

33. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the Director General of Police, Patna, to circulate amongst all the Police Officers of the State of Bihar.

(emphasis added)

11. This followed another order of the first coordinate Bench of Patna High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 53019 of 2025 (Rameshwar Kumar vs. The State of Bihar) on 01.09.2025 wherein following order has passed:

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Patliputra (Patna) P.S. Case No.5117069240583, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4) & 3(5) of the B.N.S.S.

3. The S.H.O.. Patliputra P.S. along with Investigating Officer of the case, in compliance of the order dated 30.08.2025 are present in the Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the law is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 46/51 clear that where offences for which an FIR has been instituted carries punishment of seven years and less, the arrest is not automatic. It is next submitted that in the event if the police intends to arrest an accused, who is implicated in a case relating to offences which carries punishment of seven years or less, in that event, the police has to resort to procedures as incorporated in the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), i.e. the police first has to give notice under Section 35 of the BNSS. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that anticipatory bail may or may not be maintainable after the accused receives notice under Section 35 BNSS, as it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, because the police even after issuance of notice under Section 35 BNSS cannot arrest the accused without seeking permission of the learned Magistrate. It is next submitted that if the police after issuing notice under Section 35 BNSS seeks permission of the learned Magistrate to arrest the accused, after filling the check list Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 47/51 and the learned Magistrate refuses permission to the police to arrest the accused, in that event also anticipatory bail application will not be maintainable, as there will be no apprehension of arrest, but if the learned Magistrate permits the police to arrest the accused. in that event.

apprehension of arrest will arise. The learned counsel next submits that in the event if the police without resorting to procedures as envisaged under the law arrest the person in breach of the same, in that event the police officer will be held liable in terms of Memo No. 62973 dated 19.09.2023, issued by the Hon'ble Patna High Court, as recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous. No. 3536 of 2024 (Naushad Ansari Vs. the State of Bihar). The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that of late the police without resorting to procedure as envisaged under Section 35 BNSS/41(A) of the Cr.P.S is arresting the accused and the learned Magistrate in mechanical manner remands. It is next submitted that the police without giving Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 48/51 notice to the accused under Section 35 BNSS. arrested two accused persons in the instant case, as such, the petitioner apprehended arrest, hence moved before this Court, seeking anticipatory bail.

5. The learned APP is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner after seeking instruction in the matter from the S.H.O. and the I.0. of the case but then submits that notice under Section 35 BNSS shall be given to the petitioner by 03.09.2025. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the event if notice under Section 35 BNSS is served on him, he will receive the same and will cooperate in the investigation.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with liberty to file a fresh, if need arises.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 49/51

7. Permission is accorded.

8. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

9. The personal appearance of the S.H.O.. Patliputra P.S. and the Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed with.

12. Thus there are two kind of orders of two different benches. According to Naushad Ansari (supra) order, in view of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court's direction/observation in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as also memo no. 62973 dated 19.09.2023 issued by the Patna High Court, wherein direction has been given to strictly adhere to the order/guidelines and the anticipatory bail applications are being disposed of where the punishment is within seven years whereas the another coordinate Bench order in the case of Navneet Kumar Singh (supra), observation has been made that the disposal of the anticipatory bail is in no way justified.

13. According to this Court, in the case of Naushad Ansari (supra), the coordinate Bench wanted the Police and the learned Magistrate not to act mechanically where there is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 50/51 punishment of seven years or less and further wanted the learned Magistrate not to remand the accused to judicial custody in casual manner in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court's order in the case or Arnesh Kumar (supra).

14. Para 13 of the said order clearly records that if any breach of direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is brought to the notice of this Court, the Police and the learned Magistrate shall be dealt in terms of memo no.62973 dated 19.09.2023 issued by the court under the signature of the learned Registrar General. It has stopped there and not made any comment on the pending anticipatory bails before the District Judgeships across the State where the punishment is within seven years.

15. The second coordinate Bench, however, on the other hand after taking note of Naushad Ansari (supra) case has observed that the Bench has nowhere held that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in view of the section 41A of the Cr.P.C./section 35 of the B.N.S.S. It thereafter has held that in not deciding the anticipatory bail application, the learned Sessions Judge has abdicated its duty.

16. This Court is of the opinion that both the orders compliment each other. While the first order gives directions to the Police and the learned Magistrates to strictly adhere to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65700 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 51/51 order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) as also the guidelines issued by the Patna High Court and not to act mechanically, the second order observes that when the anticipatory bail has already reached the Court, it be decided on merit.

17. However, to give clarity to the entire matter, it would be appropriate that the issue is settled by the Division Bench as to:

"whether the anticipatory bail application(s) where punishment is within seven years and have reached the stage of the Sessions Court should be considered on merit as directed in Navneet Kumar Singh (supra) case or simply disposed of following the another coordinate Bench observation in the case of Naushad Ansari (supra)."

18. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for an appropriate order.

19. Office to do the needful.

(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/-

U      T

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders