Satya Prakash vs The State of Bihar through Pr. Secretary, Home Department Govt of Bihar, Patna
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35659 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010469032026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2026 Thana- Chitragupta Nagar District- Khagaria
======================================================
Satya Prakash S/o Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh Permanent R/o Village -
Berain, PS - Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 843129 and presently at
Ballia, Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Pr. Secretary, Home Department Govt of Bihar,
Patna Bihar
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Chitragupt Nagar, District - Khagaria,
Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 38639 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010469032026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2026 Thana- Chitragupta Nagar District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Divya Prakash S/o Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh R/o vill - Shahabazpur
Salem, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar
2. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh S/o Ramtapeshwar Singh Permanent R/o vill -
Berain, P.O.- Berai, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, and presently at Baliya, U.P.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Pr. Secretary, Home Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Chitragupt, District Khagaria, Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 35659 of 2026)
For the Petitioner : Mr.Abhijit Anand, Advocate ( virtual appearance )
For the State : Mr.Jai Narain Thakur, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Vindhya Keshari Kumar, Sr.Advocate
Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 38639 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhijit Anand, Advocate ( virtual appearance )
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Naresh Ray, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35659 of 2026 dt.28-10-2026
2/7
Date : 28-10-2026
Heard Mr. Abhijit Anand, learned counsel, who
appeared virtually on behalf of petitioners, learned State counsel in
both cases and Mr. Vindhya Keshari Kumar, learned counsel for
the informant.
2. The aforesaid bail applications have been filed
directly before this Court under Section 482 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred to as
‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners of both cases
in connection with Chitragup Nagar P.S. Case No. 27 of 2026,
registered for the offence under Sections 108/3(5) of the Bhartiya
Nayay Sanhita (for short “B.N.S.”).
3. Stamp reporter has raised objection regarding
maintainability of these applications, as the petitioners have not
approached the Court of Sessions at the first instance and in this
regard, by relying on several decisions, a permission letter has
been filed before this Court for ignoring the defect by the counsel
of petitioners.
4. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant case, are that on
14.02.2026, an F.I.R. was lodged upon the written complaint by
one Nand Kumar Singh, who is father of the deceased, against
petitioners alleging therein that these petitioners are involved in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35659 of 2026 dt.28-10-2026
3/7
instigating the deceased (daughter of informant) to commit suicide
on 12.02.2026 at her government quarter inside Sadar Hospital,
Khagaria.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have directly approached this Court in the light of
several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that
there is an option and right to the accused to select either the
Sessions Court or the High Court for making an application for
pleading bail, as such their application is maintainable and it
cannot be dismissed on the ground that the petitions have not
moved before the Sessions Court at the first instance. On merits,
he submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this
case. Satya Prakash (petitioner in Cr.Misc. No. 35659 of 2026) is
brother-in-law, whereas Divya Prasad (petitioner no. 1 in Cr.Misc.
No. 38639 of 2026) is husband and Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh
(petitioner no. 2 in Cr.Misc. No. 38639 of 2026) is father-in-law of
the deceased and no one had instigated the deceased to commit
suicide. As a matter of fact, the deceased (Bhavani Kumari) was
married with Divya Prakash (petitioner no. 1 in Cr.Misc. No.
38639 of 2026) on 21.04.2024, but she stayed only for five days at
her matrimonial house till her alleged suicide on 12.02.2026 and
has already been separated from her husband and was living
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35659 of 2026 dt.28-10-2026
4/7
separately in Khagaria where she was employed as nursing staff in
Government Sadar Hospital. The petitioners and the deceased were
not in touch either on telephone or in any other manner. In this
regard, petitioners have relied upon several decisions of the
Supreme Court in the case of Prakash & Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2024 SCC OnLIne SC 3835, Mohit
Singhal & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., reported in
(2024) 1 SCC 417 and other decisions. Accordingly, he requests
for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioners.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant as well as learned State counsel vehemently opposed the
prayer of the petitioners and submitted that bail applications are
not maintainable, as petitioners have approached this Court
directly without assigning any plausible explanation. Learned
senior counsel, while relying on a Division Bench judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.09.2025 in Crl. Appeal @ SLP
(Crl) No. 17805 of 2024, submits that it has been observed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court that High Court should always encourage
exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly
interfering itself. This approach balances the interests of all the
stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of
challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35659 of 2026 dt.28-10-2026
5/7
the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so
applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead
of independently applying its mind from the first go. On aforesaid
ground, it has been prayed that this Court may not entertain the
present bail petitions and refrain from passing favourable orders.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have an option
and right to select either the Sessions Court or the High Court for
making an application for pleading bail, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sundeep Kumar
Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2014)
16 SCC 623, wherein it was observed and held that since the
Sessions Court as well as the High Court, both of which exercised
concurrent powers under Section 482 of the BNSS, person accused
of commission of non-bailable offence punishable by life
imprisonment or death, Section 483 of the BNSS can be invoked
for pleading for bail before Sessions Court and the High Court in
pre-committal stage, but at the same time, this Court is in
agreement with the submission of learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of informant that Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and
Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail
and High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35659 of 2026 dt.28-10-2026
6/7
remedy before directly interfering itself. This Court is of the
opinion that the aggrieved person should first move to the Sessions
Court in the matter, though in exceptional cases or special
circumstances, the High Court may entertain and decide an
application. But, it would be a sound exercise of judicial discretion
not to entertain each and every application for bail directly to the
High Court by-passing the Court of Session. Even, from perusal of
aforesaid bail applications, this Court does not find any
compelling circumstance for the petitioners, other than bald
statements, to directly approach this Court for grant of anticipatory
bail without exhausting their alternative statutory remedy before
the learned Sessions Court. In the entire petitions, petitioners have
not assigned any special circumstance, which compelled them to
move directly before this High Court bypassing the Sessions
Court.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, both the
anticipatory bail applications stand rejected.
9. Before parting with this order/judgment, it is observed
that if so advised, petitioners may approach before the Sessions
Court / concerned Court for grant of anticipatory bail to them
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production
of copy of this order/judgment. Needless to state that the bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35659 of 2026 dt.28-10-2026
7/7
application(s), so preferred, shall be considered on its own merit
without being prejudiced by this order/judgment.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.)
Anay
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 05.11.2026
Transmission Date 05.11.2026