Allowed¶28

Hira Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Jan 2026CR. MISC./18419/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of non-bailable warrants; accused already on bail with bail bonds never cancelled; warrant vs summons discretion to be exercised judiciously; interference with personal liberty; Section 204 (b) Cr.P.C.; FIR under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504/34 IPC; charge-sheet adding Section 302 IPC; cognizance dated 09.04.2019; Cr. Revision No. 110 of 2019; District and Sessions Judge Bhojpur (Ara); Sandesh P.S. Case, Bhojpur; Inder Mohan Goswami (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259; R.D. Bhasin 2012 (9) SCC 791.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing allowed; impugned orders dated 17.06.2019 and 03.01.2020 set aside. ¶28

Hira Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application for quashing allowed; impugned orders dated 17.06.2019 and 03.01.2020 set aside.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants against the petitioners was legally justified when they were already on bail since 14.11.2017, had never misused the privilege, and their bail bonds were never cancelled. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty; courts must be extremely careful before issuing them, and where summons can suffice to secure the accused's appearance, summons ought to be preferred over warrants.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioners were already enjoying the privilege of bail and their bail bonds had never been cancelled, there was never any occasion for issuance of warrants against them.

¶24

Key takeaways

The discretion to issue a warrant or a summons must be exercised judiciously; in the facts of the present case there was no question of exercising such discretion, as the petitioners were already on bail, had never misused it, and their bail bonds were never cancelled, so the issuance of warrants had no legal justification.ratio¶26
The submission of the opposite party no. 2 that the Magistrate concerned was well within his jurisdiction to issue warrants finds no force with this Court.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Soni Shrivastava, J), 07-01-2026, CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18419 of 2021 arising out of Sandesh P.S. Case, District Bhojpur: Application for quashing ALLOWED. Non-bailable warrants issued on 17.06.2019 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class against five accused who had been on bail since 14.11.2017, whose bail bonds were never cancelled and who had never misused the privilege of bail, and the order dated 03.01.2020 of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhojpur (Ara) in Cr. Revision No. 110 of 2019 upholding those warrants, were held unsustainable. Relying on Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259 and R.D. Bhasin Vs. State of Maharashtra 2012 (9) SCC 791, the Court held that issuance of non-bailable warrants interferes with personal liberty, courts must be extremely careful, summons ought to be preferred where sufficient, and the discretion to issue a warrant or summons must be exercised judiciously; in the present facts the warrant issuance had no legal justification. Both impugned orders set aside.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18419 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2017 Thana- SANDESH District- Bhojpur

¶3

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

¶4

Hira Singh Son Of Late Bifen Singh Resident Of Village - Saraiya, P.S.Sandesh, Distt.- Bhojpur.

¶5

Manu Devi W/O Hira Singh Resident Of Village - Saraiya, P.S.- Sandesh, Distt.- Bhojpur.

¶6

Vicky Singh Son Of Hira Singh Resident Of Village - Saraiya, P.S.Sandesh, Distt.- Bhojpur.

¶7

Pramod Kumar Son Of Hira Singh Resident Of Village - Saraiya, P.S.Sandesh, Distt.- Bhojpur.

¶8

Akash Singh Son Of Hira Singh Resident Of Village - Saraiya, P.S.Sandesh, Distt.- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

SAVITA DEVI W/o Jai Prakash Saw Resident of Village - Saraiya, P.S.Sandesh, Distt.- Bhojpur.

¶12

... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Adv. Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Anita Kumari, Adv Mr. Sudhanshu Bhushan, Adv. For the Informant Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta, Adv. For the State Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

¶13

4 07-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.

¶14

The present application has been filed for quashing

¶15

of the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhojpur (Ara) in Cr. Revision No. 110 of 2019 as also the order dated 17.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18419 of 2021(4) dt.07-01-2026 2/5

¶17

Magistrate, 1^st Class in connection with Sandesh P.S. Case No. 69 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has ordered to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners.

¶18

The background of the case is that initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners on 01.11.2017 and the petitioners were granted the privilege of bail by an order dated 14.11.2017. The victim/injured of the case died during the course of treatment on 19.12.2017 and subsequently after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by adding Section 302 of the IPC whereafter cognizance was also taken by an order dated 09.04.2019 under Sections 341, 323, 325, 302, 504/34 of the IPC in the case and the cognizance order would show that directly bailable warrants have been ordered to be issued against all the accused persons. The order-sheet which has been brought on record would further indicate that on the next date i.e. on 25.05.2019, the execution report of the bailable warrant was awaited and a further date of 17.06.2019 was given for appearance and subsequently on 17.06.2019, non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners.

¶19

The submission made on behalf of the learned

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18419 of 2021(4) dt.07-01-2026 3/5

¶21

counsel for the petitioners is two fold-one being that despite the fact that the petitioners were on bail by an order dated 14.11.2017 and never misused the privilege of bail and their bail bonds never having been cancelled, yet, bailable and nonbailable warrants were issued against the petitioners for which there was no occasion an is hence, per se, illegal. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the order dated 17.06.2019 issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioners was passed in absence of any report of the execution of the earlier order of issuance of bailable warrants which would be clearly evident from a perusal of the order-sheet of the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st class, Ara (Bhojpur).

¶22

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, per contra, submits that the Magistrate is within his jurisdiction to issue a warrant for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before the Magistrate and he makes a reference to Section 204 (b) of Cr.P.C. laying down such law. In such view of the matter, it has been submitted that no illegality has been committed by either the learned court of the Magistrate or the Revisional Court in issuance of non-bailable warrants and by upholding the said order of issuance of the non-bailable warrant.

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18419 of 2021(4) dt.07-01-2026 4/5

¶24

It is a settled position of law that the issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty and the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing nonbailable warrants as they amount to deprivation of most precious right of an individual. Therefore, as far as possible, in case the summons can suffice getting the appearance of the accused before the Court, the same ought to be preferred instead of issuance of warrants as it has been clearly held in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259 and in the case of R.D. Bhasin Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 (9) SCC 791 that issuance of warrants have extremely serious consequences and ramifications and hence, courts must be very careful in the issuance of the same. This Court is further of the view that when the petitioners of this case were already enjoying the privilege of bail and their bail bonds had never been cancelled, there was never any occasion of issuance of warrants and thus, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 stating that the Magistrate concerned was well within his jurisdiction to issue warrants. The issuance of warrants would depend on the facts and circumstances of a case and such discretion with regard to issuance of warrant or a

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18419 of 2021(4) dt.07-01-2026 5/5

¶26

summon has to be exercised judiciously. In any view of the matter, in the facts of the present case, there is no question of exercising such discretion as the petitioners were already enjoying the privilege of bail, had never misused the said privilege and also in the particular condition when their bail bonds were never cancelled, as such, issuance of warrants do not have any legal justification.

¶27

Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders dated 17.06.2019 and 03.01.2020 cannot be legally sustained and are fit to be set aside.

¶28

Accordingly, the present application for quashing is

¶29

allowed.

¶30

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

¶31

devendra/-

¶32

U T

Hira Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hira Singh 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

Manju Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Anupam Devi @ Anupam Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Uttam Kumar Arya Vs The State of Bihar

Amitabh Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Bihar

Beena Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Dheeraj Jha @ Vikash Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar