Patna High Court – Orders
Pankaj Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 27 July, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36088 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2021 Thana- MUSAHARI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Pankaj Kumar S/o Wakil Thakur Residents of village- Jhikti, P.S.- Kurhani,
District- Muzaffarpur
2. Ankaj Kumar S/o Wakil Thakur Residents of village- Jhikti, P.S.- Kurhani,
District- Muzaffarpur
3. Pappu Kumar S/o Wakil Thakur Residents of village- Jhikti, P.S.- Kurhani,
District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.K. Nirala, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 27-07-2026
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned Advocate
for the petitioners and Mr. M.K. Nirala, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Mushahari P.S. Case No. 100 of 2021,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149,
341, 323, 452, 307 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Allegedly on the fateful day, i.e. on 02.06.2021, the
informant’s son Pankaj Kumar had a fight with one Sanjay
Kumar and thereafter all the named accused persons in the FIR,
hatching a conspiracy barged into the house of the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36088 of 2026(4) dt.27-07-2026
2/9
and brutally assaulted her son due to which, the informant’s son
sustained serious injuries and subsequently, he was taken to
hospital where the Doctor declared him dead.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that
from the FIR, it is evident that these petitioners neither entered
into the house of the informant nor they were attributed any
specific role leading to any injury to the accused. The falsity of
the case is also evident that so far petitioner no. 1 Pankaj Kumar
is concerned, his marriage was solemnized on 31.05.2021 and
all these petitioners were engaged in attending marriage rituals
and thus the possibility of their presence even at the place of
crime is completely ruled out. The alleged occurrence took
place in the fateful night of 02.06.2021, but the present FIR
came to be instituted on 07.06.2021 and, as such, false
implication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out. The name of
the petitioners were implicated only on account of they being
relatives of some of the accused persons that too in order to
wreck vengeance and mount pressure. However, good sense
prevailed over the informant, who herself filed an application
before the learned trial Court stating therein that these
petitioners were not involved in the incidence and so she does
not want to pursue the matter against the petitioners. The copy
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36088 of 2026(4) dt.27-07-2026
3/9
of the aforesaid application has also been placed on record as
Annexure- P/3.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners further
contended that since the petitioners were residing outside and
thus, they were not conversant with the institution of the present
case and accordingly the delay has occurred and, in the
meantime, the process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C.
has been executed.
6. Referring to a decision passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Asha Dubey Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh : MANU/SCOR/124926/2024, it is submitted
that whenever the liberty of the accused is pitted against, the
Court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of
the offence and the background based on which such a
proclamation was issued. It is not as if in all cases that there will
be a total embargo on considering the application for grant of
anticipatory bail.
7. Reliance has also been placed on a decision passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saikat Sen Gupta
& Ors Vs. The State of Bihar (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s) 3786 of 2026), wherein, when this Court has negated the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36088 of 2026(4) dt.27-07-2026
4/9
Supreme Court taking note of the materials available on record
directed the petitioners to appear before the investigation officer
and later on, on being found that the petitioners have been able
to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail, allowed the
same with a direction that the petitioners shall continue to co-
operate with the investigation.
8. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submitted that the
facts are admitted to the extent that occurrence took place on
02.06.2021 and even as per the admission of the petitioners they
were engaged in marriage and thus all of them were present in
the village itself and, as such, the contention of the petitioners’
that they were not acquainted with the factum of incidence is
highly doubtful.
9. During the interregnum period, all the accused
persons including the female accused persons, they have
surrendered and extended the benefit of regular bail, but the
petitioners were all along evading the arrest and, as such, they
do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. So far the
application filed by the informant is concerned the same has
been filed when the process of Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C.
has already been executed, all the more the FIR has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36088 of 2026(4) dt.27-07-2026
5/9
instituted under Section 302 and other allied Sections of the IPC
and, as such, not compoundable.
10. This Court has considered the submissions
advanced on behalf of the respective parties and taken note of
the materials available on record. There is no dispute with
regard to the settled position of law that despite the issuance of
process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C., there is no
complete embargo in considering the application for
anticipatory bail, if the applicant(s) is/are able to make out a
case, extraordinary in nature.
11. Right from inception in the case of Lavesh Vs.
State (NCT of DELHI) : (2012) 8 SCC 730, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court ruled that when an accused is absconding and
declared as proclaim offender, there is no question of granting
anticipatory bail. The Court further reiterated that when a person
against whom, warrant has been issued and is absconding or
concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and
declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the
Cr.P.C. is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail.
12. Similar view was taken in the case of Prem
Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar : (2021) SCC OnLine SC
955, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para. 19
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36088 of 2026(4) dt.27-07-2026
6/9
and 20, which are as follows:
“19. Despite the above observations
on merits and despite the fact that it was brought
to the notice of the High Court that Respondent
2-accused is absconding and even the
proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC have
been initiated as far back as on 10-1-2019, the
High Court has just ignored the aforesaid
relevant aspects and has granted anticipatory
bail to Respondent 2-accused by observing that
the nature of accusation is arising out of a
business transaction. The specific allegations of
cheating, etc. which came to be considered by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at
all been considered by the High Court. Even the
High Court has just ignored the factum of
initiation of proceedings under Sections
82/83CrPC by simply observing that “be that as
it may”. The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant
of anticipatory bail ought not to have been
ignored by the High Court and ought to have
been considered by the High Court very
seriously and not casually.
20. In State of M.P. v. Pradeep
Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, it is observed and
held by this Court that if anyone is declared as
an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of
Section 82CrPC, he is not entitled to relief of
anticipatory bail….
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36088 of 2026(4) dt.27-07-2026
7/9
13. The identical issue has also come up for
consideration in the case of Abhishek Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors. : (2022) 8 SCC 282 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has said that whosoever is declared as an “absconder” and
remains out of reach of the investigating agency and thereby
stands directly at conflict with law, ordinarily, deserves no
concession or indulgence. Further in case of State of Haryana
Vs. Dharamraj : (2023) 17 SCC 510, the similar
pronouncement was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where
the Court reinforced the aforesaid mandate, however, it is
crystallized that in an exceptional and rare case, this Court or
the High Court can consider a plea seeking anticipatory bail,
despite the applicant being a proclaimed offender being
constitutional courts. The case of Asha Dubey (supra) has
already been dealt with earlier, that there will not be total
embargo to consider the pre-arrest bail, even after issuance of
process up 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.
14. In the light of the aforesaid proposition of law,
now coming to the facts of the case. It is admitted that the
occurrence took place on 02.06.2021 and altogether twelve
persons, including the petitioners, have been made accused with
an allegation of participation in causing the death of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36088 of 2026(4) dt.27-07-2026
8/9
informant’s son. All the other accused persons have surrendered
and granted regular bail. So far the petitioners are concerned,
the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and later on 83
Cr.P.C. has also been executed. The property of the petitioners,
as it appears from the record, were duly attached and subsequent
thereto, they have approached the court below for grant of
anticipatory bail, however, which was turned down.
15. The reliance of the petitioners in the case of
Saikat Sen Gupta (supra) with utmost regard is not applicable
as the case was with respect to an offence in the nature of
Criminal breach of trust and cheating and the First Information
Report was instituted in the year 2024, whereas in the case at
hand, the FIR was instituted long back in the year 2021, in
connection with a case of murder of an young boy, nonetheless
the petitioners remained absconded for more than five years and
subsequently, the process of attachment has also been executed.
16. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not
acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners,
accordingly the same stands rejected.
17. However, it is observed that, if the petitioners
surrender before court below, preferably within a period of four
weeks from today, their prayer for bail shall be considered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36088 of 2026(4) dt.27-07-2026
9/9
without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
(Harish Kumar, J)
sumit/-
U T
