Md. Faiyaz @ Faizu Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP

¶10

======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 08-09-2025

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

APP for the State.

¶15

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 03.07.2025 passed by a learned Co-ordinate Bench, final injury report was called for. It is submitted that the case diary has been received, but the final injury report till date has not been received.

¶16

3. The Court will not wait endlessly for the final injury report.

¶17

4. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 303(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023.

¶18

5. Learned APP for the State, at the outset, submits

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19950 of 2025(4) dt.08-09-2025 2/4

¶20

that the law is clear that where offences for which an FIR has been instituted carries punishment of seven years and less with or without fine, the arrest is not automatic. It is next submitted that in the event if the police intends to arrest an accused who is implicated in a case relating to offences which carries punishment of seven years or less, in that event the police has to resort to certain procedure as incorporated in the BNSS, i.e., the police first has to record reason for arresting and thereafter has to seek permission from the learned Magistrate. It is further submitted that in the event if the police does not record any reason for arresting the accused, in that event notice under Section 35 BNSS is to be issued. The learned APP next submits that anticipatory bail may or may not be maintainable after the accused receives notice under Section 35 BNSS, as it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, because the police even after issuing notice under Section 35 BNSS cannot arrest the accused without seeking permission of the learned Magistrate. The learned APP further submits that if the police after issuing notice under Section 35 BNSS seeks permission of the learned Magistrate to arrest the accused and the learned Magistrate refuses permission to the police to arrest the accused, in that event apprehension of arrest will not arise and thus

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19950 of 2025(4) dt.08-09-2025 3/4

¶22

anticipatory bail application will not be maintainable, but if the learned Magistrate permits the police to arrest the accused, in that event apprehension of arrest will arise. The learned APP next fairly submits that in the event if the police without resorting to procedure as envisaged under the law arrests the person in breach of the same, in that event the police officer shall also be held liable in terms of Memo No. 62973 dated 19.09.2023 issued by the Hon’ble Patna High Court as recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3536 of 2024 (Naushad Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar). It is further submitted that Section 35 BNSS is similar to Section 41 of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

6. It is next submitted that there is no pleading in the anticipatory bail application which could even remotely suggest that notice under Section 35 BNSS has been issued to the petitioner when the offences for which the instant FIR has been instituted carries punishment of less than seven years. The learned APP, thus, submits that since no notice under Section 35 BNSS has been issued to the petitioner, as such, petitioner for the present does not have any apprehension of arrest.

¶24

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned A.P.P. for the State, but then submits that of late, police

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19950 of 2025(4) dt.08-09-2025 4/4

¶26

even without resorting to procedure as envisaged under the Cr.P.C. /BNSS with respect to offences carrying punishment of seven years and less, is arresting the accused and the learned Magistrates are also mechanically remanding, on which the learned APP again submits that the said issue has been taken care of by Memo No. 62973 dated 19.09.2023 issued by the Hon’ble Patna High Court.

¶27

8. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with liberty to file afresh, if need arises and further to file an application before the concerned Superintendent of Police of the district, bringing to his notice that he has not been served with notice under Section 35 BNSS, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶28

9. Permission is accorded.

¶29

10. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

¶30

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶31

Rishabh/-

¶32

U T

Md. Faiyaz @ Faizu v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Faiyaz @ Faizu v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soni Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Bittu Paswan @ Bittu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Maz Khan @ Margub Jama Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Pintu Kumar Singh @ Pintu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar