Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.27 seconds)Section 41 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014
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.
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Nausher Ali Ansari @ Nausher Ali & Anr vs The State Of Bihar Through The ... on 4 October, 2017
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.
Section 41 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Gauri Shankar Roy vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 September, 2008
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."