The Patna High Court has held that anticipatory bail petition is maintainable even when proclamation proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is initiated against the accused.

The Court was considering an Anticipatory Bail Petition filed in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 103(1), 352 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The single judge bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar held, "I further find that proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC/Sections 84 and 85, BNSS have been taken against the petitioners during pendency of their anticipatory bail petition before the District Court as well as this Court. Hence, the Petitioners could not be held to be evading arrest."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Yashraj Bardhan, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Upendra Kumar.

Facts of the Case

As per the allegation, the Petitioners and Co-accused caused injury by iron rod, knife and spade to the mother of the informant in the field, leading to her death at the hospital after ten days.

Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the allegation as made against the Petitioners is general and omnibus in nature. It was averred that there is no specific allegation who caused what injury to the alleged victim

He also submitted that process under Sections 82, 83 of the Cr.PC, corresponding to Sections 84 and 85 of the B.N.S.S. respectively, have been taken by the Police during pendency of the Anticipatory Bail Petition before the District Court as well as this Court and therefore they could not be held to be avoiding warrants of arrest.

On the other hand, the APP submitted that the Anticipatory Bail Petition is not maintainable, in view of the process taken under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.PC, corresponding to Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS, 2023, respectively, against the Petitioners.

Reasoning By Court

The Court impressed upon whether an Anticipatory Bail Petition is maintainable in view of the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC, corresponding to Sections 84 and 85 of the B.N.S.S respectively.

It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012), Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2021), State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014), Abhishek Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2022), State of Haryana Vs. Dharamraj, (2023), Asha Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda, (2025).

The Court clarified that the Anticipatory Bail Petition of a Petitioner facing accusation is maintainable, even if the proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.PC/Sections 84 and 85 of the B.N.S.S, have been initiated against him; however, the grant or rejection of anticipatory bail would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

"...The Court is required not only to see the circumstances under which the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC/Sections 84 and 85 B.N.S.S. were taken, but, even the nature of the allegation and the material in support thereof is also required to be looked into. The Court is also required to consider the factum of the proceeding taken under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC/Sections 84 and 85 B.N.S.S. seriously and not casually, while considering the anticipatory bail petition of such accused....", the Court held.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Mangali Devi vs. The State of Bihar

Click here to read/ download Order












Patna High CourtJustice Jitendra Kumar

Sheetal Joon