Anticipatory Bail Applications Maintainable Even For Offences Punishable With 7 Year Sentence Or More: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has clarified that a Sessions Court having jurisdiction to decide an anticipatory bail application is duty-bound to adjudicate the same on merits by either allowing or rejecting it, and cannot dispose of such an application without doing either. The Court further clarified that there is no statutory bar on entertaining anticipatory bail applications merely because the...
The Patna High Court has clarified that a Sessions Court having jurisdiction to decide an anticipatory bail application is duty-bound to adjudicate the same on merits by either allowing or rejecting it, and cannot dispose of such an application without doing either. The Court further clarified that there is no statutory bar on entertaining anticipatory bail applications merely because the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more.
These observations were made by a Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Jitendra Kumar while hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order of the trial court by which anticipatory bail had been denied to the petitioner.
The allegations against the petitioner-husband and his family members related to offences under Sections 323, 341, 498A, 324, 504 and 312 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. However, cognizance was ultimately taken only for the offence under Section 498A IPC against the petitioner.
Subsequently, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court rejected the application solely on the ground that the offence under Section 498A IPC is punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, and denied anticipatory bail without examining the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the Sessions Judge had committed a serious error of law by failing to decide the anticipatory bail application either by granting or rejecting it on merits. Instead, the Sessions Court had merely disposed of the application by relying on the decisions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, without undertaking a proper adjudication. The High Court noted:
“19. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil case (supra), nowhere has held that anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable in cases related with offence punishable up to seven years of imprisonment or they are not required to be decided by Jurisdictional Courts under Section 438 Cr.PC/482 BNSS…Hence, it clearly emerges that learned Sessions Judge has cited the judgments in his order irresponsibly and negligently.”
Upon considering the merits of the case, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court further directed the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to circulate a copy of the order to all judicial officers across the district judiciary in Bihar.
Cause Title: Aashik Kumar Sah v. State of Bihar and Another
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 63385 of 2025
Appearance: Mr. Abhishek Kumar and Mr. Hemant Ray appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Upendra Kumar appeared for the State. Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey and Mr. Akshay Tripathi appeared for the Informant.