[ad_1]
Patna High Court – Orders
Md. Firoj vs The State Of Bihar on 23 April, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21483 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2024 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
Md. Firoj S/o- Md. Chhotan Nat, Resident of Village - Murgiyachak, P.S. -
Janipur, Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with
Phulwarisharif (Janipur) P.S.Case No.132 of 2024 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 379, 384, 504
and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code .
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner
along with co-accused damaged the boundary wall of the
informant. Bricks of Rs.28,000/- & Iron Bar of Rs.6,800/- were
stolen by them. The petitioner assaulted the informant and
demanded Rs.5 lac as ransom.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner informs that considering the nature of
allegation made against the petitioner and the offences, which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21483 of 2025(2) dt.23-04-2025
2/4
provides for punishment of less than seven years, in view of the
law laid down by the Apex Court in Paragraph no.11 of
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case reported in (2014) 8 SCC
273 and the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case
of Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. in Cr. Appeal
No.2207 of 2023, the petitioner seeks to approach the Police for
granting benefit of Section 35(3) of Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 in verbatum of Section 41 of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
6. I find it appropriate to reproduce paragraphs no.
11 of Arnesh Kumar (supra), which is reproduced, inter alia,
as follows:-
“11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that
police officers do not arrest the accused
unnecessarily and Magistrate 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21483 of 2025(2) dt.23-04-2025
3/4
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 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.”
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of
the case, I find that because of the arbitrary action of the
concerned Police Officer, the petitioner has been harassed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21483 of 2025(2) dt.23-04-2025
4/4
leading to filing of the present bail application. The Sr.S.P.,
Patna must see that the law laid down by Apex Court and the
guidelines issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Asfak Alam
(supra) must be followed in its true spirit.
8. Since the petitioner has been harassed and has been
forced to file the present anticipatory bail application and till
date charge-sheet has not been submitted, the petitioner is
apprehending his arrest, he is directed to be released on pre-
arrest bail in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S.Case No.132 of
2024 pending before the court of the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate XIV, Patna on such terms and conditions as
laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS of 2023.
9. The present bail application is accordingly disposed
of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U T
[ad_2]
Source link