In a significant move safeguarding personal liberty, the Patna High Court intervened after a Sessions Court allegedly failed to properly adjudicate an anticipatory bail petition in a Section 498A IPC case. The High Court scrutinized procedural lapses by lower courts in handling pre-arrest relief, raising urgent questions on judicial compliance with Apex Court directions regarding arrest under cognizable offences punishable up to seven years.
The controversy arose when Aashik Kumar Shah sought anticipatory bail following a complaint under Sections 323, 341, 498A, 324, 504, 312 IPC, the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 67 of the IT Act. After an inquiry, cognizance was taken only for Section 498A. The petitioner claimed false implication, noting the complainant-wife’s willingness to live with him despite their marital disputes and her nine-month pregnancy.
Counsel argued that the Sessions Court, rather than ruling on the bail request, mechanically disposed of it citing Arnesh Kumar and Satyendra Kumar Antil judgments, ignoring that these precedents never barred anticipatory bail for offences punishable up to seven years.
The Division Bench held that the Sessions Court committed a “serious error of law” by not deciding the bail petition on merit. The High Court emphasized the Supreme Court’s clear guidelines under Section 41 and 41A CrPC to prevent unnecessary arrests, noting, “If the Courts which are vested with jurisdiction to hear pre-arrest bail petitions, shut their doors and refer the petitioners to Police to get relief under Sections 41 and 41A of the Cr.PC, it would be a dooms day for the right of the people to life and liberty.”
Upholding the petitioner’s entitlement, the High Court granted anticipatory bail, directing him to furnish bonds of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, and underscoring strict compliance with the conditions and Supreme Court directives.
Case Title: Aashik Kumar Sah @ Ashik Kumar Sah vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 63385 of 2025
Coram: Justice Jitendra Kumar
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Abhishek Kumar, Hemant Ray
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Upendra Kumar (APP), Pramod Kumar Pandey, Akshay Tripathi
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
