Patna High Court – Orders
Diggaj Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 2 July, 2025
Author: Chandra Prakash Singh
Bench: Chandra Prakash Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37089 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1790 Year-2017 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- East Champaran
======================================================
Diggaj Kumar son of Balram sah VILLAGE-INDRAPURI KAUDIHAR
CHOK, RAXAUL PS-RAXAUL, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN,
MOTIHARI
.. ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ram Ekbal Mahto Son of Late Bahadur Mahato Village- Derwa Mathiya,
Ps- Keshariya, Dist- East champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH
SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 02-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in
connection with Complaint Case No. C-1790 of 2017 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the
co-accused persons are alleged to have cheated the complainant
and others and grabbed Rs. 4,89,187/- of public. It is further
alleged that the accused persons had assaulted the complainant
and threatened him of dire consequences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37089 of 2025(2) dt.02-07-2025
2/4
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is
no any specific allegation against the petitioner rather the co-
accused, Birendra Yadav had taken the amount of Rs. 2,67,687/-
from the complainant. It is further submitted that the alleged
N.G.O. Meera Shukla Kendra is a resistered NGO with the
Government of India and the said N.G.O. Kendra started, but in
the meantime, the Government of India has cancelled the
scheme due to which the whole training programs have been
closed as per the order of Government of India. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged
N.G.O. and he is working and residing at Madhya Pradesh along
with his family members since long. The occurrence took place
on 21.09.2015 but the complaint case was filed on 23.08.2017
i.e. the delay of two days and there is no explanation for this
delay. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated at para
3 of the bail petition.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and
submitted that the instant anticipatory bail application is not
maintainable as the processes u/ss 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. have
already been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37089 of 2025(2) dt.02-07-2025
3/4
declared a proclaimed offender. Learned APP for the State has
further relied upon the case of (Abhishek vs. State of
Maharashtra (2022) 14 SCC 529) where it was held that “As
regards the implication of proclamation having been issued
against the appellant, we have no hesitation in making it clear that
any person, who is declared as an ‘absconder’ and remains out of
reach of the investigating agency and thereby stands directly at
conflict with law, ordinarily, deserves no concession or
indulgence.” Reliance has further been placed on the decisions of
(Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730, Adri Dharan
Das vs. State of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303) and (Prem Shankar
Prasad vs. State of Bihar 2021 SCC Online SCC 955) and in the
case of (State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj (Cr. Appeal No. 2635 of
2023 @ out of SLP (Cri.) No. 2256 of 2022, reported in 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 739: 2023 INSC 784) disposed of 29.08.2023
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “Anticipatory bail
can be granted to a person to a proclaimed offender only in
exceptional and rare case.” It is further submitted that the
materials available on the record do not reveal any exceptional or
rare case due to which the plea of anticipatory bail may be
considered. Learned counsel for the informant has further relied on
the judgment of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors Vs State of Bihar &
Anr. in SLP (Crl) No. 7940 of 2023 where it was held that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37089 of 2025(2) dt.02-07-2025
4/4
“even after the issuance of non-bailable warrants they did not
care to appear before the Trial Court and did not apply for
regular bail after its recalling. It is a fact that even after coming to
know about the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., they did
not take any steps to challenge the same or to enter appearance
before the Trial Court to avert the consequence. Such conduct of
the appellants in the light of the aforesaid circumstances leaves us
with no hesitation to hold that they are not entitled to seek the
benefit of pre-arrest bail.”
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case as well as finding substance in the contention of learned
counsel for the State and the fact that the processes u/s 82 and 83
have been issued against the petitioner, accordingly, the
anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the
same is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to surrender to
the Court below within a period of six weeks from the date of this
order and the Court below will consider the prayer of the bail of
the petitioner in accordance with law without being prejudice by
this order.
7. The application stands disposed of.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
shivam/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link