Patna High Court
Manish Kumar @ Manish Kumar Das vs The State Of Bihar on 28 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74819 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2017 Thana- SIMRI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Manish Kumar @ Manish Kumar Das son of Madan Das Resident of Village-
Nirmali Ward No. 03, Police Station- Nirmali, District -Supaul .. Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .. ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
APP for the State.
2. The instant application has been filed for quashing the
order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge
(Excise Act)- II, Darbhanga in G.O. Case No. 1016 of 2017
arising out of Simri P.S. Case No. 64 of 2017, whereby and
whereunder fresh summon has been issued against the petitioner
for facing trial in the aforesaid case, which is pending in the
court of the learned Special Judge (Excise Act)- II, Darbhanga
though it has been clearly stated that cognizance is taken only
once in a case and the cognizance order of this particular case
has been set aside by order dated 30.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 30608 of 2024 by a Coordinate Bench.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner had moved earlier before this Hon'ble Court for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
2/13
quashing the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the
learned Special Excise Judge- 11, Darbhanga in Simri P.S. Case
No. 64 of 2017 (G.O. - 1016 of 2017) by filing Cr. Misc. No
30608 of 2024 and the same was heard and allowed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 30.07.2024 but
so far as order which is challenged in this petition, has not been
challenged by the petitioner earlier.
4. As per the FIR, it is alleged by the informant that upon
a secret information, a pickup van was intercepted and the
police party got a hold on it, but the driver managed to flee and
the staff of the pickup van was apprehended who disclosed his
name as Anand Kumar and disclosed that the driver who ran
away was Anand Kamat. He also disclosed that the pickup van
bearing Reg. No.- BR-06GA-2374 having 39 cartoon Royal
Stag liquor belongs to one Manish Kumar Das (petitioner) who
was in a Scorpio. Consequently, a total of 349.560 liters
foreign liquor was recovered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
from perusal of the entire First Information Report no offence is
made out against the petitioner as except being named in the
First Information Report there is nothing against him. Learned
counsel has further submitted that from perusal of the First
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
3/13
Information Report it is clear that on disclosure of the
apprehended person, the informant reached the house of the
petitioner but there also nothing has been found which suggests
that this petitioner was involved in any manner in the present
case. During the investigation, police has also not found any
material against this petitioner, but it is quite surprising that
without finding anything that could give an indication that the
present petitioner was involved in liquor business, in a very
mechanical manner the investigation was kept going on against
him while the charge sheet has been submitted against the
arrested person on 30.08.2017 vide Charge Sheet No. 94/2017.
Learned counsel has submitted that it is quite surprising that
the charge sheet No. 94/2017 was submitted against one Anand
Kumar on 30.08.2017 and on the same date without applying
any judicial mind the court below has taken cognizance against
Anand Kumar and also directed the office to open
supplementary case record for the accused persons against
whom the further proceeding was going on. It is also quite
surprising that even though the cognizance has not been taken
against the present petitioner and on the direction of the court
supplementary case record for the accused persons against
whom the further proceeding is going on has been opened the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
4/13
court below on 11.09.2017 in a very mechanical manner issued
warrant of arrest against the present petitioner. Learned counsel
has next submitted that thereafter the petitioner moved before
this Hon'ble Court for grant of his anticipatory bail vide
Cr.Misc. No. 46602 of 2017 and the same was allowed on
17.10.2017
by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
6. Learned counsel has further submitted that the I.O. of
the present case once again submitted a charge sheet on
25.05.2018 bearing Charge sheet No. 42/2018. In the said
charge sheet the Investigating Officer disclosed that the name
and address of Rakesh Kumar was not found as disclosed by the
apprehended accused Anand Kumar. It has further been stated
that charge sheet is submitted against the present petitioner
Manish Kumar Das and Anand Kamat and the case was not
found true against Rakesh Kumar. It is quite surprising that the
same apprehended accused Anand Kumar had disclosed two
names one of Manish Kumar Das alleging that he was the
person who was bringing the liquor and one Rakesh Kumar
alleging that he was the persons from whom the liquor was
brought. The police party who did not find anything from the
house of the petitioner submitted charge sheet against him, but
declared the case untrue against the said Rakesh Kumar as his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
5/13
name and address was not found. The I.O. did not even apply his
mind that the said Anand Kumar might be concocting a story
against both the persons for saving his skin.
7. Learned counsel has next submitted that though the
second charge sheet bearing C.S. No. 42/2018 was submitted on
25.05.2018 after the lapse of about five years the court below on
22.05.2023 took cognizance against the petitioner holding
therein that already a cognizance has been taken on 30.08.2017
and supplementary case record was opened against the present
petitioner, hence the order of cognizance dated 30.08.2017
would be applied against this petitioner as well.
It is quite surprising that by order dated 30.08.2017 the
cognizance was taken against the petitioner though the charge
sheet was submitted against the petitioner much later i.e. on
25.05.2018, which is against the established rule as cognizance
should be taken after the submission of charge sheet. The order
dated 22.05.2023 is quite violative to section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
which talks about bar for taking cognizance after lapse of the
period of limitation.
8. Learned counsel has thus submitted that the court
below in a very haste manner has taken cognizance against the
petitioner by order dated 22.05.2023 after the lapse of five years
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
6/13
without considering the provisions made under section 468 of
the Cr.P.C. The petitioner thus challenged the said order dated
22.05.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 30608 of 2024 and the same was
allowed on 30.07.2024 by a coordinate bench of this Court by
setting aside the order impugned dated 22.05.2023 with further
direction to the learned court below to pass a reasoned order of
cognizance within 15 days from the date of
receipt/communication of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the
court below again considered the materials available on record
in the light of the order of the Hon’ble High Court and
proceeded against the accused Manish Kumar Das (petitioner)
and Anand Kamat and directed the office clerk to issue fresh
summons against both the aforesaid accused.
9. It has been submitted that it is a well settled law that
once the cognizance is taken for an offence it will not be taken
again that means double cognizance is not permissible according
to law. As per the learned Special Judge, the reason for taking
cognizance is that the Hon’ble High Court has ordered to take a
fresh decision, but the learned Special Judge failed to read the
decision passed by this Hon’ble Court alongwith the decisions
by Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases in which it has come
that double cognizance is not in accordance with law.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
7/13
10. It has been argued that even if the decision of this
Hon’ble Court is taken into consideration the learned court
below has only been directed to pass a reasoned order of
cognizance within fifteen days. No such reason has been given
in the order dated 13.08.2024 as to why cognizance has been
taken once again and in what circumstances double cognizance
can be taken. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that the
petitioner is a student who has obtained a degree of Para
Medical from Darbhanga Medical College Hospital and has a
bright career. It is beyond imagination that a person who is
perusing such a prestigious career will indulge in such activity
as discussed in the prosecution story.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to
enforce his argument on the point of 2 nd cognizance, referred to
various judicial pronouncements especially the one passed in
Jamuna Singh & Ors vs. Bhadai Sah reported in (1964)
SSCR 37 wherein in Para-14 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India observed :
“14. Cognizance having already been taken
by the Magistrate before he made the order there
was no scope of cognizance being taken afresh of
the same offence after the police officer’s report
was received. There is thus no escape from the
conclusion that the case was instituted on Bhadai
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
8/13Sah’s complaint on November 22, 1956, and not on
the police report submitted later by the Police Sub-
Inspector, Baikunthpur. The contention that the
appeal did not lie under s. 417(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure must therefore be rejected”
12. The learned counsel then refers to the order passed by
our own High Court in the case of Lalan Kumar vs. State of
Bihar passed in Cr. Misc. No. 37503 of 2023 wherein this
Court in Para-18 has observed :
“18. The present case is based on an F.I.R.
whereas Section 142(a) provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, no Court shall take
cognizance of any offence punishable under
Section 138 except upon a compliant in writing
made by the payee or, as the case may be, the
holder in due course of the cheque. The learned
Magistrate, upon receiving the police report had
taken cognizance of the offence vide order dated
28.09.2020. The order taking cognizance has been
quashed by the competent Revisional Court by
order dated 06.04.2021 and at the same time the
matter has been remanded back to the learned
Magistrate for passing fresh order. The remand
would eventually lead to taking cognizance on the
same set of charges by the learned Magistrate. This
principle of law has been cogently elucidated by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
9/13the Apex Court in Jamuna Singh‘s Case (supra),
wherein it has been held that once cognizance is
taken by a Magistrate, second cognizance cannot
be allowed to be taken for the same set of offences.”
13. The learned counsel thus submits that the learned
Court below erred in taking cognizance afresh, which amounts
to taking second cognizance which is not permissible in law as
held by various judicial pronouncements.
14. The learned APP for the State has submitted that the
application is misconceived and the learned Court below was
well within his powers to take cognizance once the police had
submitted supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner and
one another finding evidence against them.
15. This court finds that a charge sheet filed subsequently
does not automatically apply to a cognizance order that was
already passed in relation to co-accused, who were charge
sheeted earlier. The law distinguishes between the process of
taking cognizance of an offence and framing of charge against
the accused. This Court also takes into account that if a
supplementary charge sheet is filed against persons not named in
the original charge sheet, like the present petitioner, a fresh
cognizance order is required for those additional accused. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the various High Courts have made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
10/13
it clear that the court cannot simply extend or apply the earlier
cognizance as an umbrella to cover these new accused persons.
The Court must independently consider the material against the
new accused before issuing process against them.
16. Section 319 Cr. PC clearly defines that in cases where,
during trial or inquiry, evidence emerges against someone not
initially charge sheeted Courts can take cognizance and add
such a person as an accused. The mode of taking cognizance in
such a case will be the same as for the original accused, but
there has to be a judicial determination requiring satisfaction
that the material justifies such a fresh step for taking cognizance
against the next accused. The courts have also observed that a
charge sheet filed subsequently against other accused does not
automatically mean that the prior cognizance order covers them.
The Court must expressly consider and apply its mind to the
supplementary charge sheet and material for those co-accused
before proceeding.
17. From the discussions made above, it is clear that a
subsequent charge sheet against other accused requires this court
to expressly consider and take cognizance regarding those
individuals. The previous cognizance taken in respect of co-
accused does not automatically extend to persons named later in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
11/13
a supplementary charge sheet. The court’s judicial application of
mind for each accused based on the material placed is necessary
before process can be issued. This court finds that the previous
order taking cognizance being applied in the case of the
petitioner could not be held to be legally valid, and hence this
court had rightly set aside the previous order-taking cognizance
dated 22.05. 2023 as far as the petitioner was concerned and had
also further directed to the learned court below to apply its mind
and pass a reasoned order of cognizance within 15 days from the
date of receipt/ communication of a copy of the said order.
18. From the perusal of the impugned order, this court
finds that the learned court below in Paragraph 6 has referred to
the evidence, which has come against the petitioner and had
opined considering those evidences that there is a prima facie
case being made out against the petitioner. This court finds the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
misplaced, wherein he takes a leaf out of the observations made
in Paragraph 9 of the impugned order :
“It is also well- settled principle of law that
cognizance is taken only once in a case”.
19. This observation of the Court was independently
correct, however, as observed here-in aforesaid, the cognizance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
12/13
of the offence as far as the subsequent accused i.e., the present
petitioner was imperative to be taken subsequently in view of
the fact that the court has to apply its judicial mind for the
subsequent accused vis-a-vis the materials collected against him
by the police. This court at this point would like to refer to the
judicial pronouncement in the case of Sharif Ahmed and Anr
vs the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr as reported in 2024
SCC online SC 726 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in
Para 14 referred to the provisions of Sections 190, 204, 211,
212, 213 and 218 of the Cr.PC. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, after consideration of various judicial pronouncements
made on the aforesaid provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code
and taking the same into account in paragraph 24 has observed thus :
“24. It is the police report which would
enable the Magistrate to decide a course of action
from the options available to him. The details of the
offence and investigation are not supposed to be a
comprehensive thesis of the prosecution case, but at
the same time, must reflect a thorough investigation
into the alleged offence. It is on the basis of this
record that the court can take effective cognisance
of the offence and proceed to issue process in terms
of Section 190(1)(b) and Section 204 of the Code.
In case of doubt or debate, or if no offence is made
out, it is open to the Magistrate to exercise other
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74819 of 2024 dt.28-07-2025
13/13options which are available to him.”
20. From the aforesaid discussions and the perusal of the
judicial pronouncements, I do not find any illegality in the order
impugned as the learned Court has prima facie found a case
against the accused persons and has thus passed an order taking
cognizance against the petitioner, which was well within his
jurisdiction on account of the fact that the previous order was set
aside by this court, directing him to pass an order afresh.
21. In view of the above, the present application is devoid
of merits and is hereby dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Prakash/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date