SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prabhat Ranjan vs The State Of Bihar on 27 November, 2019

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1102 Year-2019 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada

PRABHAT RANJAN Son of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma @ Vijay Sharma
Resident of Village- Nurpur, P.S.- Nathnagar (Madhusudanpur), District-
Bhagalpur, at present residing as – Physical Training Teacher, R.P.S.- School,
Nawada, P.S. and District- Nawada.

… … Petitioner/s
The State of Bihar

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajeev Nayan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP


2 27-11-2019 Instant petition under Sectionsection 438 of Criminal

Procedure Code has been moved for grant of anticipatory bail in

F.I.R. No.1102 of 2019, dated 17.9.2019 registered at P.S. Town

(Nawada), under Sections 341, Section323, Section504, Section506, Section509, Section354, Section354(B)

of the Indian Penal Code.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also

perused the relevant record of the case, necessary for

adjudication of this petition.

It is the case of the prosecutrix, who is a major, that

the petitioner dragged her at the time when she was withdrawing

the money from the A.T.M.. Also the accused Prabhat Ranjan

assaulted her.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77227 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019

Attention of the Court is invited to the fact that the

complainant is in habit of filing complaints, repeated in nature,

perhaps for overt reasons. Petitioner/bail applicant is a married

man having two children. He has no criminal antecedents. He is

fully cooperating in the investigation.

This Court is of the considered view that

petitioner has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

Possibility of false implication, as is so alleged by the

petitioner, cannot be ruled out. Also, thus far save and except

for naming the petitioner in the F.I.R., no evidence

corroborative in nature stands recorded by the police. Also,

none has come forward to highlight the possible involvement

of the petitioner in the crime. On what basis the Investigating

Officer could link the accused to the crime is also not

emanating from the record.

Prima facie also, it appears that thus far no case

against the petitioner is made out indicating his complicity in

the alleged crime. Also nothing is produced to highlight

petitioner’s direct involvement in the crime.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner has roots in the society; is not

likely to interfere in the investigation or influence any of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77227 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019

witnesses or destroy the evidence and no further recovery is to

be made from the petitioner, nor any custodial interrogation is


It is settled law that the grant of bail is the discretion

of the court, but the discretion must be exercised not in

opposition to, but in accordance with the well established

principles of law.

The law laid down in Gudikanti Narasimhulu

Versus public prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240 by Justice

Krishna Iyer explains the judicial discretion as- the unspoken

but inescapable, silent command of our judicial system, and

those who exercise it will remember that discretion when to a

court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must

be governed by rule, not by humor, it must not be arbitrary,

vague and fanciful, but legal and regular.

The similar observation was made by the Hon’ble

Supreme court in another case of SectionJai Prakash Singh vs State of

Bihar and another, reported in 2012 Cri. L.J. 2101.

The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the

principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every

man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found


Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77227 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019

In the case of Sidharam Saltingappa Mhetre Vs.

State of Maharastra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court observed : “Personal liberty is very precious fundamental

be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case”. While relying

upon its decision rendered by its Constitution Bench

in SectionGurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC

565, laid down the following parameters for grant of bail:-

“111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket

formula can be provided for grant or refusal of

anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no

attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible

guidelines in this respect because all circumstances

and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized

for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In

consonance with the legislative intention the grant or

refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend

on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly

observed in the Constitution Bench decision in

Sibbia’s case (supra) that the High Court or the Court

of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under Sectionsection

438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77227 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019

discretion which by their long training and experience

they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the

legislative mandate which we are bound to respect

and honour.”

Going through the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.,

the four factors, which are relevant for considering the

application for grant of anticipatory bail, are :

(i) the nature and gravity or seriousness of

accusation as apprehended by the applicant;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact

as to whether he has, on conviction by a Court, previously

undergone imprisonment for a term in respect of any cognizable


(iii) the likely object of the accusation to humiliate or

malign the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested;


(iv) the possibility of the appellant, if granted

anticipatory bail, fleeing from justice.

SectionIn State of Maharashtra vs. Mohd. Sajid

Hussain 2008 (1) SCC (Crl.) 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

while examining the principles governing grant of

anticipatory bail, held that one of the four factors relevant for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77227 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019

considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail is the

possibility of the applicant, if granted anticipatory bail fleeing

from justice.

The Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre

(supra) laid down certain factors and parameters to be

considered while considering application for anticipatory bail :

“122. The following factors and parameters can be

taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory


i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the

exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before

arrest is made;

ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact

as to whether the accused has previously undergone

imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any

cognizable offence;

iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from


iv. The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to

repeat similar or the other offences.

v. Where the accusations have been made only with

the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77227 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019

him or her.

vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in

cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of


vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available

material against the accused very carefully. The court must also

clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case.

The cases in which accused is implicated with the help

of Sectionsections 34 and Section149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court

should consider with even greater care and caution because over

– implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and


viii. While considering the prayer for grant of

anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors

namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full

investigation and there should be prevention of harassment,

humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of

tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the


x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be

considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77227 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019

have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the

event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the

prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is

entitled to an order of bail.

The court granting bail should exercise its discretion

in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at

the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and

elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be

undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for

prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly

where the accused is charged of having committed a serious


In Vilas Pandurang Pawar Versus State of

Maharastra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 also it was held that while

considering application for bail, scope for appreciation of

evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not

expected to indulge in critical analysis of evidence on record.

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the

present petition is allowed.

The Petitioner, namely, Prabhat Ranjan, Son of Shri

Vijay Kumar Sharma @ Vijay Sharma, resident of Village-

Nurpur, P.S. Nathnagar (Madhusudanpur), District- Bhagalpur,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77227 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019

in the event of arrest, be enlarged on bail subject to the

following terms and conditions:

(a) The petitioner shall furnish a bail bond of Rs.

25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand) with one surety each of

the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

(b) The petitioner is directed to join the investigation

of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in

accordance with law.

(c) The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation

in any manner whatsoever or shall influence any of the


(d) The petitioner shall facilitate in the early

completion of the investigation and otherwise fulfill all other

statutory terms and conditions, so prescribed, in accordance

with law.

(e) The petitioner shall not leave India without prior

permission of trial Court.

(f) The petitioner may seek regular bail in accordance

with law.

(g) Liberty reserved to the State to approach the Court

seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail, if so required,


Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77227 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019

Any observation made herein shall not be construed

as an expression on the merits of the matter.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation