In a matter arising from allegations of armed assault, the Patna High Court examined whether a Sessions Judge can dispose of an anticipatory bail application by merely directing the accused to seek recourse before the police, without adjudicating the plea on merits. The case presented a critical question on the interplay between statutory pre-arrest bail provisions and police discretion under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Read on to learn how the Court addressed this tension and reaffirmed the constitutional safeguards of personal liberty.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a registration of a written report alleging that the petitioner attacked Shivam Kumar, son of the informant, with a pistol and knife while he was returning from shopping. The victim was overpowered by his relatives and a co-villager, Abhinandan Singh, who snatched the pistol, after which the petitioner fled, leaving behind his motorcycle. The pistol, knife, and motorcycle were handed over to the police, leading to registration of offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352, and 351(2) of the BNSS, and Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act. Fearing arrest, the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail petition before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Court, without deciding the application on merits, directed him to represent before the Superintendent of Police and Investigating Officer with a copy of the order in Naushad Ansari v. State of Bihar. Aggrieved by the disposal of his application without a decision on bail, the petitioner has now approached the Patna High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He argued that the Sessions Court should have granted him anticipatory bail instead of abdicating its duty by referring him to the police for representation. He further submitted that he has no criminal antecedents, had not previously moved any similar bail application, and that anticipatory bail petitions remain maintainable despite provisions under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 35 of the B.N.S.S.)
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent submitted that there was no justification for the Sessions Court's abdication of duty, as it disposed of the bail petition by merely giving liberty to the petitioner to represent before the police, without deciding the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Observation of the Court:
The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, highlighting that provisions for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 482 of the B.N.S.S.) cannot be rendered otiose by referring petitioners to police discretion under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.
The Court held that the Sessions Judge’s decision to dispose of the anticipatory bail application without granting or rejecting it, and instead directing the petitioner to approach the police on the strength of prior High Court orders, amounted to an abdication of judicial responsibility. The Bench clarified, while reiterating “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,” that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Mohd. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand was intended to prevent unnecessary arrests and mechanical authorisation of detention by police and magistrates, and did not in any way render anticipatory bail petitions non-maintainable.
It noted that neither the Supreme Court nor the coordinate Bench in Naushad Ansari vs. State of Bihar held anticipatory bail as non-maintainable, and in fact, bail was granted in those cases. The Court stressed that statutory provisions like pre-arrest bail, post-arrest bail, Sections 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C., refusal of remand, discharge, and acquittal operate concurrently to prevent curtailment of liberty without legal necessity, and courts cannot shut their doors by referring petitioners to other fora. It warned that such an approach would jeopardize liberty by making it dependent on police discretion, contrary to constitutional schemes.
While referring to several precedents, the Court affirmed that apprehension of arrest persists even after issuance of notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., rendering anticipatory bail maintainable. The Court criticized the misuse of arrest powers by police and casual remands by magistrates, leading to a flood of bail petitions, and urged strict compliance with Supreme Court directions, including potential contempt proceedings for non-compliance.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the petition, directing that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or on surrender within eight weeks, upon furnishing bail bonds of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount. The relief is subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, including the possibility of bail cancellation if the petitioner conceals criminal antecedents or makes false statements regarding previous bail applications.
Case Title: Navneet Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar
Case No: Criminal Miscellaneous No.38822 of 2025
Coram: Justice Jitendra Kumar
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Vishal Prasad Srivastava
Advocate for opposite Party: APP Anand Kishore Choudhary,
Amici Curiae: Advs. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Anil Singh
Picture Source :
