Patna High Court – Orders
Upendra Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 22 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69611 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3847 Year-2022 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Saran
======================================================
1. Upendra Singh Son of Late Ram Sharekh Singh Resident of Village-
Fulchak Rasalpura, P.S.- Doriganj District- Saran @ Chapra
2. Nitish Kumar Son of Kalika Ray Resident of Village- Fulchak Lodipur, P.O.-
Chirand, P.S.- Doriganj District- Saran @ Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Saroj Kumar Singh Son of Late Raghuwansh Singh Resident of Village-
Rasalpura, P.S.- Doriganj, District- Saran @ Chapra
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-01-2025
Heard Mr. Rakesh Mohan Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned App
for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Saran @ Chapra Complaint Case No.3847 of
2022, (Trial No.1053A/2024), dated 19.12.2022 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420,
120(B), 386, 504, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act but the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Saran took cognizance under Sections 420 and 506 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69611 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025
2/9
the IPC only against the present petitioners.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that Saroj Kumar
Singh filed complaint against 11 accused persons. A land in
Garkha Anchal of Saran district of area 04 bighas 02 kathas and
16 dhurs having equal share in name of Pradeep Singh,
Munesar Singh and Mathura Singh. Mathura Singh sold his
share to the father of complainant in 1932. On 01.11.1932
complainant came to know that his land bearing Khata No.42,
Survey No. 44 has been sold deceptively by Upendra Singh,
and Lalo Devi to Kalika Rai, Nitish Kumar and Brijesh Kumar
Yadav. One Upendra Singh deceptively sold the same land to
Brijesh Kumar and Kalika Rai on 21.10.2022 despite that the
grandfather of Upendra Singh had sold his share of land to
Ghanshyam Singh. On 17.12.2022, all the FIR named accused
persons came to the complainant field with Arms and
Ammunition to encroach the said land and on the order of
Kalika Rai, Nitish Kumar open fired in the air and asked to
leave the land and Trigunanath Rai alongwith his son namely
Brijesh Kumar yadav demanded extortion money of Rupees
Two Lakhs. Hence this complaint has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69611 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025
3/9
Further submits that the complainant has filed the present
complaint petition on 19.12.2022 against 11 accused persons
including the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the
present case. The allegation as alleged in the complaint petition
is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed
any offence as alleged in the complaint petition and it appears
from the complaint petition that the present case is the dispute
of purely civil nature and complainant has attempted to make to
give criminal colour. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the anticipatory bail petition was filed before issuance of
the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. so present anticipatory
bail petition is maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed a
counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioners have not
come before this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners
on 04.09.2024 and in view of the aforesaid, the present
anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69611 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025
4/9
2024 Supreme Court 1600 and he has referred the paragraph
Nos.21,24,25 and 26, which are being reproduced below:
“21. To understand and consider another
contention of the appellants it is worthy to
extract ground No.3 raised by the appellants
in SLP which reads thus:
“III. Because the Hon’ble High Court has
failed to appreciate that proclamation under
section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 04.01.2023
by the Ld. Trial Court and thereafter process
under section 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated
on 15.03.2023 whereas the application for
anticipatory bail by the petitioner before the
Hon’ble High Court was filed in November,
2022, however, the same was came for
hearing on 04.04.2023. It is, therefore,
evident that when the petitioners preferred
filing of anticipatory bail before the Hon’ble
High Court then none of the petitioner was
declared absconder and process under
section 82/83 Cr.P.C. were not initiated
against them.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69611 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025
5/9
“24. We have already held that the power to
grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary
power. Though in many cases it was held
that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by
any stretch of imagination, be said that
anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the
rule and the question of its grant should be
left to the cautious and judicious discretion
by the Court depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case. While called
upon to exercise the said power, the Court
concerned has to be very cautious as the
grant of interim protection or protection to
the accused in serious cases may lead to
miscarriage of justice and may hamper the
investigation to a great extent as it may
sometimes lead to tampering or distraction
of the evidence. We shall not be understood
to have held that the Court shall not pass an
interim protection pending consideration of
such application as the Section is destined to
safeguard the freedom of an individual
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69611 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025
6/9
against unwarranted arrest and we say that
such orders shall be passed in eminently fit
cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or
proclamation is issued, the applicant is not
entitled to invoke the extraordinary power.
Certainly, this will not deprive the power of
the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme,
exceptional cases in the interest of justice.
But then, person(s) continuously, defying
orders and keep absconding is not entitled to
such grant”.
“25.The factual narration made
hereinbefore would reveal the consistent
disobedience of the appellants to comply
with the orders of the trial Court. They failed
to appear before the Trial Court after the
receipt of the summons, and then after the
issuance of bailable warrants even when
their co-accused, after the issuance of
bailable warrants, applied and obtained
regular bail. Though the appellants filed an
application, which they themselves described
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69611 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025
7/9
as “bail-cum-surrender application” on
23.08.2022, they got it withdrawn on the
fear of being arrested. Even after the
issuance of non-bailable warrants on
03.11.2022 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.PC., they
did not take any steps to challenge the same
or to enter appearance before the Trial
Court to avert the consequences. 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”.
“26.The upshot of the discussion is that
there is no ground for interfering with the
order of the High Court rejecting the
application for anticipatory bail rather not
considering application on merits. Since
their action is nothing short of defying the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69611 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025
8/9lawful orders of the Court and attempting to
delay the proceedings, this appeal must fail.
Consequently, it is dismissed”.
7. Apart from the aforesaid, learned counsel for the
complainant has relied upon the order dated 01.12.2022 passed
in Cr.Misc. No.12922 of 2022 in the case of Arjun Kumar Vs.
The State of Bihar.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the relevant portion of order 01.12.2022 passed in Cr.Misc.
No.12922 of 2022 in the case of Arjun Kumar Vs. The State
of Bihar, which is at page-16 and the same is being reproduced
hereinbelow:
“Decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
reported in (2012)8 SCC 730 and in the case
of Prem Shankar Prasad vs. The State of
Bihar and another, reported in AIR 2021
SC 5125 does not make any distinction
whether anticipatory bail petition is filed
before or after passing of order under
section 82 of ‘the Code’. Merely because the
petitioner has preferred anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69611 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025
9/9petition prior to order passed under section
82 of ‘the Code’, it does not ipso facto make
him entitled to the privileges for anticipatory
bail”.
9. In views of the aforesaid findings of the Hon’ble
Apex Court and also in view of the process under Section 82
Cr.P.C. which has been issued against the petitioners, I find that
this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners in connection with Saran @ Chapra Complaint Case
No.3847 of 2022, (Trial No.1053A/2024), pending in the court
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
10. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T