SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 1581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR
Aashik Kumar Sah @ Ashik Kumar Sah, S/o Surendra Sah – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
For the Informant :Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Mr. Akshay Tripathi, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the maintainability and adjudication requirement for anticipatory bail petitions under Section 438 Cr.PC / BNSS in cases where the offence is punishable up to seven years?

What is the proper appellate/jurisdictional approach courts must take when considering anticipatory bail petitions in offences with potentially lesser penalties, and should they decide on merits rather than disposing off under Arnesh Kumar/Satyendra Kumar Antil directives?

What are the established guidelines and precedents (Arnesh Kumar, Md. Asfak Alam, Navneet Kumar Singh, Gauri Shankar Roy, Naushad Ansari, Naushad Ansari) governing anticipatory bail maintainability and the obligations of Sessions Courts in Bihar when such petitions reach them?


Table of Content
1. anticipatory bail case background (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. court's observations on dismissal of bail petition (Para 3 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 26)
3. arguments against previous court's decision (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 11)
4. legal standards for anticipatory bail (Para 16 , 19 , 22)
5. grant of anticipatory bail (Para 27 , 28)

ORDER :

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 4 82 B.N.S.S. / 438 of the Cr.PC for anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.2383 of 2024 by the Complainant/ O.P. No.2 herein against her husband/petitioner herein and his family members for proposed offence under Sections 3 23 , 341, 498(A), 324, 504, 312 IPC , Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 67 of the I.T. Act .

2. However, after inquiry by learned Judicial Magistrate, cognizance only of the offence punishable under Section 498(A) has been taken against the husband/Petitioner herein.

3. Subsequently, the Petitioner/Aashik Kumar Shah preferred anticipatory bail petition bearing no. 3229 of 2025 before learned Sessions Court, East Champaran at Motihari. However, the same has been disposed of by learned Sessions Judge vide orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top