Amrita Kumari vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50455 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2024 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda
======================================================
Amrita Kumari, W/o Mahesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar, resident of Village-
Nazir Nagar, PS- Harnaut, District- Nalanda. At present Daughter of Om
Prakash Prasad, resident of Village- Bhandara Pokhar, PS- Ekangarsarai,
Distt.- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mahesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar S/o Lalan Prasad Vill.- Nazir Nagar, PS-
Harnaut, Distt.- Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar No. I, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Updhayay, APP
For Opp. Party No.2 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-07-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2 . None appears on behalf of the opposite party
no.2 despite valid service of notice. Yesterday also, none had
appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2. It has been
informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
informed the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 about
listing of the matter today. In these circumstances, this Court has
no other option but to proceed with the matter.
3. This application has been filed for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50455 of 2025 dt.16-07-2026
2/7
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party
no.2 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif,
vide order dated 23.06.2025 passed in A.B.P. No.1162 of 2025
in connection with Harnaut P.S. Case No. 142 of 2024 registered
for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 498-A, 506/34 of
the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
4 . According to the prosecution case, the
informant/petitioner was married to opposite party no.2 in
accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that,
subsequent to the marriage, the husband and other members of
the matrimonial family started demanding a sum of Rs.
5,00,000/- and one motorcycle from the father of the informant
by way of dowry. It is further alleged that, on account of non-
fulfillment of the said demand, the accused persons subjected
the informant to physical assault and mental cruelty from time
to time.
5 . The prosecution further alleges that on
17.03.2024, the accused persons assaulted the informant with an
intention to kill her. It is also alleged that, upon being informed
of the said occurrence, the father of the informant immediately
came to her matrimonial home and took her back to his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50455 of 2025 dt.16-07-2026
3/7
residence.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the prayer of the opposite party no.2 for grant
of anticipatory bail had earlier been rejected by the learned
District & Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated
23.05.2025 passed in A.B.P. No.799 of 2025. It is submitted
that, subsequent to such rejection, the opposite party No. 2 again
approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalanda at
Biharsharif, by filing A.B.P. No.1162 of 2025, who vide the
impugned order dated 23.06.2025, granted anticipatory bail to
the opposite party no.2 without taking into consideration the fact
that an earlier application for anticipatory bail on the same cause
had already been rejected by a competent court.
7 . It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that on perusal of the bail petition filed on behalf of
the opposite party no.2 in the Court below, it appears that no
fresh ground has been mentioned for grant of second
anticipatory bail and the learned Principal Judge has also not
discussed anything about the maintainability of second
anticipatory bail. Further, vide the impugned order, no
discussion on material and substantial change in circumstance
has been mentioned before admitting the opposite party no.2 to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50455 of 2025 dt.16-07-2026
4/7
the privilege of anticipatory bail. Therefore, it is contended that
the grant of anticipatory bail in the aforesaid circumstances is
contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R. Ananda Babu vs.
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. reported as (2021) 16 SCC 725 .
8 . It has further been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise the opposite party
no.2 has contravened the conditions of the bail granted to him,
by which he was directed to make attempts for an amicable
settlement of the dispute with the informant and to co-operate in
the trial, however, the opposite party no.2 and has not taken any
steps to settle the dispute with the informant and is also not co-
operating in the trial.
9 . I have considered the submissions of the
parties and perused the materials on record including the
impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party
no.2. From the records, it appears that the anticipatory bail of
the opposite party no.2 had already been rejected on an earlier
occasion by the District and Additional Sessions Judge- III,
Nalanda, vide order dated 23.05.2025 and thereafter, the
opposite party no.2 again moved a second anticipatory bail
petition vide A.B.P. No.1162 of 2025 without disclosing any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50455 of 2025 dt.16-07-2026
5/7
fresh ground for grant of anticipatory bail and consequently, the
impugned order has been passed by the Principal Sessions Judge
without considering the fact that it was the successive
anticipatory bail application of the opposite party no.2 without
any substantial change in the case.
10 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
G.R. Ananda Babu (supra) has held that successive
anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained. The
specious reason of change in circumstance cannot be invoked
for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected
by a speaking order.
11 . It is a well-settled proposition of law that the
filing of a successive application for anticipatory bail is not, per
se, barred. However, the consideration of such a subsequent
application is predicated upon the applicant demonstrating the
existence of a substantial, material, and genuine change in the
factual or legal circumstances subsequent to the rejection or
disposal of the earlier application. It is equally well established
that a mere superficial, cosmetic, or illusory plea of changed
circumstances, unsupported by any substantive material, would
not constitute sufficient justification for entertaining or allowing
a second application for pre-arrest bail. Furthermore, where the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50455 of 2025 dt.16-07-2026
6/7
subsequent application merely reiterates the grounds urged in
the earlier application, without disclosing any fresh or
significant development, the Court would be fully justified in
rejecting the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently
held that successive anticipatory bail applications are
maintainable only upon the demonstration of a material change
in circumstances and cannot be employed as a device to seek a
review of an earlier order by re-agitating identical grounds.
Reference can be made upon the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court rendered in the cases of G.R. Ananda Babu
(supra); Rani Dudeja v. State of Haryana , reported as (2017)
13 SCC 555 .
12. Considering the fact that no material change
has been discussed in the subsequent anticipatory bail
application moved by the opposite party no.2 and is, therefore,
in teeth of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the aforesaid decisions . Accordingly, the impugned order suffers
from perversity and cannot be sustained.
13. In view of the above, the impugned order
dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge,
Nalanda at Biharsharif in A.B.P. No.1162 of 2025 in connection
with Harnaut P.S. Case No. 142 of 2024 is hereby quashed. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50455 of 2025 dt.16-07-2026
7/7
bail granted to the opposite party no.2 vide the impugned order
dated 23.06.2025 is hereby cancelled and the bail bonds
furnished by him also stand cancelled.
14. This application is allowed.
15. It is made clear that the observations made
hereinabove are confined to the consideration of the present
application and shall not be construed as an expression of any
opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be decided by the
learned Trial Court uninfluenced by the same.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A.
Uploading Date 20.07.2026
Transmission Date 20.07.2026.