Patna High Court - Orders
Niranjan Kumar @ Anuranjan vs The State Of Bihar on 8 April, 2026
Author: Prabhat Kumar Singh
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1024 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-280 Year-2015 Thana- BRAHMPURA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Niranjan Kumar @ Anuranjan S/o- Kameshwar Prasad Srivastava Village-
New colony behind Sanjay Cinema Ps- Brahmpura, Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Pushpa Sinha.1, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 08-04-2026Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 323, 379,380, 384, 447, 448, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 7, 11,14 and 16 of the POCSO Act.
3. As per prosecution case, all the FIR named accused persons including this petitioner entered house of the complainant, pointed a pistol and asked her mother to sign stamp paper and on refusal they intimidated to commit rape with her younger daughter. Accused persons snatched gold chain and cash Rs.60,000/- from mother of the complainant. Cause of incident is said to be a land dispute and accused persons wanted to grab the said land.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the records it is evident that police after investigation submitted final form dated 30.6.2016 against the petitioner. However, on protest petition, court took cognizance of the offence. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was not named in the complaint or in protest petition and on a mistaken Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1024 of 2026(4) dt.08-04-2026 2/2 fact and circumstances, court below has taken cognizance of the offence. Petitioner does not even know the complainant and her family members.
5. Learned counsel for the State, referring to the impugned order, points out that after lapse of seven years of order taking cognizance, petitioner was neither arrested nor did he appear before the court. Thereafter, summons, warrants and process under section 82 Cr.P.C. were issued for ensuring attendance of the accused persons. Petitioner has been declared absconder and his record has been separated from the original record. Learned counsel submits that in such condition, petitioner cannot be granted any relief of anticipatory bail but has to present him before the concerned court to face trial. Reliance is placed to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad Versus the State Of Bihar & Anr (Criminal Appeal No.1209 of 2021), reported in LL 2021 SC 579.
6. In view of the aforesaid development and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this pre-arrest bail petition is dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashi/-
U T