IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77227 of 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
Versus
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
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORAL ORDER
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
2/10
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
3/10
witnesses or destroy the evidence and no further recovery is to
be made from the petitioner, nor any custodial interrogation is
required.
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
guilty.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77227 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019
4/10
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
5/10discretion 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
offence;
(iii) the likely object of the accusation to humiliate or
malign the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested;
and
(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
6/10
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
bail:
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
justice;
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
7/10
him or her.
vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in
cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of
people.
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
concern;
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
complainant;
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
8/10
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
offence.
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
9/10
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
witnesses.
(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,
subsequently.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77227 of 2019(2) dt.27-11-2019
10/10
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)
K.C.Jha/-
U T
