Keshav Mishra @ Keshav Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30089 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2024 Thana- Sonki District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Keshav Mishra @ Keshav Kumar Mishra S/o Shankar mishra R/o Vill and P.S.- Ghanshyampur, Distt- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Madhumala Kumari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sonki P.S. Case No. 76 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable u/s 309(4) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, three unknown miscreants are alleged to have looted the informant's motorcycle on the point of pistol.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner has surfaced in this case
2/4 during the course of investigation. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. No T.I.P. has been conducted by the prosecution. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the instant anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and from the lower court record that vide order dated 28.01.2025, as the process u/s 84 of the B.N.S.S. has already been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner is declared a proclaimed offender. Learned counsel has further relied upon the case of (Abhishek vs. State of Maharashtra (2022) 14 SCC 529) where it was held that "As regards the implication of proclamation having been issued against the appellant, we have no hesitation in making it clear that any person, who is declared as an 'absconder' and remains out of reach of the investigating agency and thereby stands directly at conflict with law, ordinarily, deserves no
3/4 concession or indulgence." Reliance has further been placed on the decisions of (Lavesh vs. State (NCT of DelhiI) (2012) 8 SCC 730, Adri Dharan Das vs. State of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303) and (Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar 2021 SCC Online SCC 955) and in the case of (State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj (Cr. Appeal No. 2635 of 2023 @ out of SLP (Cri.) No. 2256 of 2022, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739: 2023 INSC 784) disposed of 29.08.2023 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: "Anticipatory bail can be granted to a person to a proclaimed offender only in exceptional and rare case." It is further submitted that the materials available on the record do not reveal any exceptional or rate case due to which the plea of anticipatory bail may be considered. Learned counsel has further relied upon the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors.
Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 202, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide para-24 of the said judgment has been pleased to hold that "at any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power".
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and
4/4 circumstances of the case as well as the petitioner having been declared a proclaimed offender, the anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Court below concerned within six weeks from the date of this order and the prayer for regular bail and the learned Court below may consider his prayer for regular bail on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.
7. The application stands disposed of.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Gautam/- U T