Case Background
This case arises from Manjhi P.S. Case No. 379 of 2024, dated 27.11.2024, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Manjhi Police Station, District Saran.
According to the FIR in this case, the informant’s mother was allegedly assaulted in an agricultural field using weapons like an iron rod, knife and spade. The allegation is that the petitioners and a co-accused caused injuries that led to her death in hospital ten days later.
The five petitioners, all from the same family, approached the Patna High Court under Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33213 of 2025. They feared arrest and sought anticipatory bail in connection with this FIR, which carries serious offences including those relating to attempt to commit offences and causing death, under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 103(1), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
Before coming to the High Court, the petitioners had already moved for anticipatory bail before the District Court. During the pendency of their anticipatory bail petitions in both courts, the police initiated proclamation proceedings and attachment of property under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), corresponding to Sections 84 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.).
The State took the stand that, as proclamation proceedings had been initiated and the petitioners were declared absconders with attached property, the anticipatory bail petition itself was not maintainable. This objection became a key legal issue before the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Justice Jitendra Kumar of the Patna High Court heard both sides. On one hand, the petitioners claimed innocence and false implication. On the other, the State pressed the seriousness of the offence and the fact that proclamation and attachment orders had already been issued.
The first major question the Court addressed was: can anticipatory bail be considered when proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC (or their B.N.S.S. equivalents, Sections 84 and 85) are already initiated?
The Court noted that this question was not new, and referred to several Supreme Court decisions and recent High Court rulings. These judgments together provide guidance on how courts should deal with anticipatory bail applications where proclamation proceedings exist.
In Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730, the Supreme Court held that, normally, when an accused is absconding and is declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.PC, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. The Court reiterated that someone who is evading arrest and declared a proclaimed offender is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
In Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 955, the Supreme Court again underlined that the High Court should not ignore the fact that proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC had been initiated. In that case, the High Court was faulted for granting anticipatory bail despite such proceedings, without seriously considering them.
The Court next referred to State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, where the Supreme Court held that a person declared an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 Cr.PC is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.
In Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 8 SCC 282, the Supreme Court again stated that any person declared an absconder and who remains out of the reach of the investigating agency ordinarily deserves no concession like pre-arrest bail.
Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a proclaimed offender is generally not entitled to anticipatory bail, though in rare and exceptional cases constitutional courts may still consider it.
However, the Patna High Court also noted a more recent Supreme Court decision in Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MANU/SCOR/124926/2024). There, the Supreme Court clarified that a declaration under Section 82 Cr.PC does not create an absolute bar in all cases against considering anticipatory bail. The Court must look into the circumstances, nature of the offence, and the background of the proclamation. It held that in appropriate cases, anticipatory bail may still be granted, subject to conditions and with liberty to seek cancellation on breach.
The Patna High Court further cited the decision in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda, [2025 SCC OnLine SC 764], where the Supreme Court said that High Courts should treat non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings seriously, not casually, while deciding anticipatory bail.
Looking at High Court precedents, the Patna High Court referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment in Deepankar Vishwas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/MP/0882/2025. There, it was held that anticipatory bail applications remain maintainable even where proceedings under Sections 82/83 and 299 Cr.PC (now Sections 84/85 and 335 BNSS) have been initiated or the accused is declared a proclaimed offender. However, grant of such bail must depend on the gravity and seriousness of the offence, and should be done cautiously, only in extreme and exceptional cases.
The Delhi High Court in Jagadish Das v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4553, also held that anticipatory bail should not be granted to a proclaimed person except in exceptional or extraordinary situations.
After reviewing this chain of judgments, the Patna High Court drew a clear principle: an anticipatory bail petition is maintainable even if proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC / Sections 84 and 85 B.N.S.S. have been initiated. However, maintainability is different from entitlement. Whether to grant or reject anticipatory bail will depend on:
- the circumstances under which proclamation and attachment proceedings were started,
- the nature and seriousness of the allegations,
- the supporting material, and
- the overall conduct and background of the accused.
Crucially, the Court must treat the fact of proclamation and attachment seriously, not as a mere formality.
Turning to the specific facts of this case, the Court noted there was a clear case and counter case between the two sides. The petitioners’ side had filed Manjhi P.S. Case No. 369 of 2024 on 17.11.2024, the very day of the alleged occurrence, alleging attempt to murder and allied offences under BNS. The informant of the present case lodged Manjhi P.S. Case No. 379 of 2024 ten days later, relating to the same incident.
In the petitioners’ FIR (case no. 369 of 2024), it was stated that when the informant (from petitioners’ side) was going to his field at 11:00 a.m. on 17.11.2024, he saw certain persons laying a water pipe on his strip of land. When he questioned them, they allegedly assaulted him. One person allegedly hit him on the head with a spade with intent to kill, causing a fracture. Another allegedly attacked him with a sickle, injuring his hand. When his son came to rescue him, he too was allegedly attacked with a spade, causing a head fracture. His wife and daughters were also allegedly assaulted, leading to fractures of their heads and breaking of his wife’s hand. They also alleged that the accused in that FIR were powerful and had made their life “hell.”
In the present FIR (case no. 379 of 2024), it is alleged that the petitioners and co-accused assaulted the informant’s mother, leading to her death after ten days in hospital. The State relied on the post-mortem report, which recorded death due to shock and haemorrhage from injury caused by a hard and blunt substance. This supported the serious nature of the offence.
The defence, however, pointed out that the allegations against the petitioners in the present case were general and omnibus. There was no specific allegation about which petitioner caused what specific injury to the deceased. They also stressed that they had no criminal antecedents, and had not previously moved either for anticipatory or regular bail in this matter.
An important factor for the Court was the timing of the proclamation and attachment proceedings. The proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC / Sections 84 and 85 B.N.S.S. were initiated while the petitioners’ anticipatory bail petitions were already pending before the District Court and then before the High Court. The Court held that in these circumstances, the petitioners could not be treated as people deliberately evading arrest or avoiding warrants, because they were actively pursuing their legal remedies for anticipatory bail.
In the end, the Court balanced several factors:
- Existence of a case and counter case arising from the same occurrence,
- Injuries on both sides, with an FIR of attempt to murder registered even from the petitioners’ side,
- Death on the informant’s side, but serious injuries alleged on the petitioners’ side as well,
- Clean antecedents of the petitioners (subject to later verification),
- Lack of specific, individual roles attributed to each petitioner in the FIR, and
- The fact that proclamation proceedings were initiated during the pendency of anticipatory bail petitions.
Considering all these, the Patna High Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition. The Court directed that the petitioners be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest, or on their surrender before the court below, within eight weeks from the date of receipt or production of the High Court’s order. They must furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned court, in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 379 of 2024. This was made subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and additional specific safeguards.
The Court also laid down two special conditions. First, if it is later brought to the notice of the trial court that any petitioner has criminal antecedents which were concealed, the trial court shall cancel their bail bonds after giving them an opportunity of hearing and satisfying itself about such concealment. Second, if it is later shown that their statement about previous bail petitions is wrong, the trial court shall cancel their bail bonds.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for people facing criminal cases in Bihar, especially where proclamation and attachment proceedings have been started. Many accused fear that once they are declared absconders or their property is attached, they lose the chance to seek anticipatory bail forever.
The Patna High Court clarified that an anticipatory bail petition remains legally maintainable even after proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC (or Sections 84 and 85 B.N.S.S.). What matters is how and why those proceedings were started, the seriousness of the case, and the overall facts.
For people involved in “case and counter case” situations, especially arising out of land or village disputes, this decision shows that the Court will look at injuries on both sides, the timing of FIRs, and whether there is any clear, specific role of each accused. A delayed counter FIR or general allegations may be treated differently from a clear, detailed complaint.
The judgment also reminds the police and lower courts that proclamation and attachment orders cannot be used mechanically to shut the door on anticipatory bail, particularly when the accused are already approaching courts for legal remedies.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Is an anticipatory bail petition maintainable when proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC / Sections 84 and 85 B.N.S.S. have already been initiated against the accused?
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that such a petition is maintainable. However, grant or refusal of anticipatory bail will depend on the facts, including why proclamation was initiated, the seriousness of the offence, the material on record, and the conduct of the accused. -
Issue: Should anticipatory bail be granted in a murder-related counter case where both sides have suffered injuries and proclamation proceedings were initiated during pending bail applications?
Answer: Yes, in this case. Considering the existence of a case and counter case, injuries on both sides, general and omnibus allegations with no specific role to each petitioner, clean antecedents, and the fact that proclamation was started while bail petitions were pending, the Court granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions. -
Issue: Do proclamation and attachment orders automatically mean that the accused is evading arrest and thus ineligible for anticipatory bail?
Answer: No automatic bar. The Court held that where proclamation proceedings are initiated during the pendency of anticipatory bail petitions, the accused cannot automatically be treated as evading arrest. The circumstances must be examined carefully.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730
- Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 955; also referred as (2022) 14 SCC 516
- State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171
- Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2022) 8 SCC 282
- State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510
- Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SCOR/124926/2024
- Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764
- Deepankar Vishwas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/MP/0882/2025 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
- Jagadish Das v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4553 (Delhi High Court)
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33213 of 2025; arising out of Manjhi P.S. Case No. 379 of 2024, District Saran.
Case Title: Mangali Devi @ Mangari Devi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Date of Judgment: 27.08.2025 (CAV judgment; CAV date 20.08.2025)
Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 207
Advocates: Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP for the State.
Nature of the Case: Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC / Section 482 B.N.S.S., in connection with a criminal case alleging assault leading to death, with parallel proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC / Sections 84 and 85 B.N.S.S.
Link to the Judgment: Click here to view full judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
