Case Background
This case arises from a street dispute between two local vehicle drivers in Saran district. Both the appellant and respondent no. 2 are described as auto or tempo drivers, who carry passengers in the same local area.
According to the written report, on 21.02.2025 respondent no. 2 was standing with his tempo, waiting for passengers near Sahajitpur. At that time, a Toto driver, identified as the appellant, allegedly started abusing him with caste-based remarks over the issue of letting passengers sit.
The informant stated that when he protested, the appellant beat him with a danda. People nearby intervened and separated them. Later, when the informant was going towards his home, he alleged that the appellant again surrounded him and assaulted him with a bamboo stick, causing a head injury.
It was also alleged that the appellant broke the informant’s mobile phone and snatched Rs. 2,000/- from him. Some passers-by then rescued the informant and the appellant allegedly fled after issuing threats.
On the basis of the written statement, Sahajitpur P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025 was registered on 22.02.2025 for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 324(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
During investigation, the Investigating Officer moved the court of the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Saran at Chapra, seeking issuance of process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the appellant did not appear. On 23.07.2025, the Special Judge allowed the application and directed issuance of process under Section 82 CrPC.
The appellant, aggrieved by this order, filed the present Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3345 of 2025 before the Patna High Court. He sought to set aside the proclamation order passed by the Special Judge.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, heard both sides and focused on a narrow question: whether the trial court was justified in issuing process under Section 82 CrPC against the appellant.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the dispute was essentially over picking up passengers between two local auto drivers. He claimed that the criminal case was an outcome of rivalry and “dirty village politics”, and that the appellant had been falsely implicated.
The defence also highlighted that the FIR was lodged one day after the alleged occurrence, i.e., incident on 21.02.2025 and FIR on 22.02.2025. According to them, there was no convincing explanation for this delay, which cast doubt on the prosecution story.
It was further submitted that the allegations against the appellant were general and omnibus in nature. The counsel stressed that the appellant was innocent and had no intention to disobey any court order.
The appellant’s side also informed the High Court that an anticipatory bail application filed by him before the same Court was still pending. On that basis, they suggested there was no need to proceed harshly by declaring him an absconder under Section 82 CrPC. They characterised the entire action as a “misuse of provision of law” and requested that the High Court interfere with the order dated 23.07.2025.
On the other hand, the State opposed the appeal. The State’s counsel pointed out that the FIR clearly named the appellant as an accused and that the case had been pending for nearly eight months since its registration on 22.02.2025.
The State submitted that despite this long period, the appellant had not appeared before the concerned court. The Special Judge therefore issued process under Section 82 CrPC on 23.07.2025.
The High Court recorded that, as per the order of the Special Judge, the endorsement/return (E/R) of non-bailable warrant (NBW) and the copy of the case diary showed that the Investigating Officer had conducted raids to arrest the accused. However, the appellant could not be apprehended.
Only after such efforts failed, the Investigating Officer filed a petition before the Special Judge seeking issuance of process under Section 82 CrPC. The trial court, noting the failure to secure the appellant’s presence despite NBW and raids, issued the proclamation process “in the interest of justice.”
The State emphasised that a court cannot remain a silent spectator if a named accused in an FIR does not appear. For effective progress of the case, the court is bound to use legal provisions to secure the accused’s presence. Issuing a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC in such circumstances was therefore proper and necessary.
The Patna High Court considered these rival submissions and examined the Special Judge’s order dated 23.07.2025. The Court specifically noted that the lower court order clearly mentioned the E/R of the NBW and the efforts made by the Investigating Officer to arrest the appellant.
The High Court found that the Special Judge had recorded reasons explaining why the office was being directed to issue process under Section 82 CrPC. The order reflected that only after raids failed to secure the appellant, and after considering the material in the case diary, the application of the Investigating Officer was allowed and proclamation was ordered.
Importantly, the High Court observed that the FIR was registered on 22.02.2025 and that “till today” the accused/appellant had not surrendered before the concerned court. This continuous non-appearance weighed heavily with the Court.
In this background, the High Court held that the Special Judge’s reasoning was “quite justified and legal.” It agreed that a court must take reasonable steps to secure the presence of an accused against whom serious offences under the BNS and SC/ST Act are alleged.
The Court found the State’s arguments “quite tenable or sustainable.” It concluded that there was no illegality or perversity in the issuance of process under Section 82 CrPC, since necessary preconditions such as issuance and non-execution of NBW and actual efforts by the police were satisfied.
Consequently, the Patna High Court refused to interfere with the impugned order. It held that there was “no reason to differ” from the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Saran at Chapra.
The criminal appeal was therefore dismissed at the admission stage itself, meaning the Court found no ground to even formally admit the appeal for detailed hearing.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for accused persons who try to avoid appearing before the trial court after registration of an FIR, especially in serious cases under the SC/ST Act and new BNS provisions.
The Patna High Court made it clear that when an accused does not surrender or appear for a long time, and the police fail to execute non-bailable warrants despite raids, the trial court is justified in moving to the next step and issuing proclamation under Section 82 CrPC.
For ordinary readers, the key message is that filing an anticipatory bail application or alleging false implication does not, by itself, protect a person from proclamation proceedings if he does not appear before the court. Courts expect cooperation with the process, and will support the use of legal tools to secure an accused’s presence.
The decision also reassures informants and victims of caste-based violence that courts will not allow cases to stall merely because the accused remains out of reach for months.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Saran at Chapra was justified in issuing process under Section 82 CrPC against the appellant in Sahajitpur P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025.
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the trial court had already issued NBW, considered its endorsement/return, noted raids by the Investigating Officer, and recorded reasons before ordering proclamation. In these circumstances, the order was legal and justified, and the appeal was dismissed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No previous judgments or case laws are cited or relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3345 of 2025, arising out of Sahajitpur P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, District Saran.
Case Title: Abhimanyu Kumar Singh @ Manu Singh @ Aabhimanyu Singh vs. The State of Bihar and another.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey.
Citation: 2026(1) PLJR 167.
Advocates: For the appellant: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey. For the respondents: Ms. Usha Kumari 1.
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (single judge) challenging an order of the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Saran at Chapra issuing process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Offences Involved: Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 324(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Date of Impugned Order: 23.07.2025.
Date of High Court Judgment: 04.11.2025.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court.
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.
