Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 04-09-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department of Mines.

¶14

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411, 188, 120B, 34 of the IPC, Section 56, 21 of Bihar Minerals (Concession) Prevention of illegal Mining transportation and storage Rules 2019 and Section 15 of Environment Protection Act.

¶15

Learned APP for the State, at the outset, submits that the law is clear that where offences for which an FIR has been instituted carries punishment of seven years and less, the

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43155 of 2025(3) dt.04-09-2025 2/4

¶17

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 Cr.P.C, i.e., the police first has to give a notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. The learned APP next submits that anticipatory bail may or may not be maintainable after the accused receives notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., as it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, because the police even after issuance of notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. 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 41A of the Cr.P.C. 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 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

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43155 of 2025(3) dt.04-09-2025 3/4

¶19

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).

¶20

It is next submitted that there is no pleading in the anticipatory bail application which could even remotely suggest that notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. 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 41A of the Cr.P.C. has been issued to the petitioner, as such, petitioner for the present does not have any apprehension of arrest.

¶21

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 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

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43155 of 2025(3) dt.04-09-2025 4/4

¶23

care of by Memo No. 62973 dated 19.09.2023 issued by the Hon’ble Patna High Court.

¶24

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 41A of the Cr.P.C., within a period of three weeks from today.

¶25

Permission is accorded.

¶26

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

¶27

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶28

Siddharth Soni/-

¶29

U T

Manoj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Kunjbihari Prasad @ Kujbihari Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar Ghosh @ Kaju Ghosh Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Mustafa Ansari @ Md. Mustafa Vs The State of Bihar

Soni Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Bittu Paswan @ Bittu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nazrul @ Najrul Haque Vs The State of Bihar