High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 PAT CK 3663

Anil Kumar vs The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 22 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23599 of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 362 words
1.

Heard the parties.

2.

The present petition preferred against Cr. Rev. No.26 of 2019 dated 20.02.2019 as passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge- IV, East Champaran, Motihari, which was preferred against the order dated 07.01.2019 as passed by A.C.J.M.-XIII Motihari, East Champaran, wherein the learned jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 393, 414 of the I.P.C. and 25(1-b)a, 26 of the Arms Act, and also rejected the petition of the petitioner to release the petitioner on bail by giving the privilege of default bail as provisioned under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

3.

It transpires from the argument as advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that cognizance order as passed by learned magistrate is bad in eyes of law, as it was taken on the same very date on which the charge-sheet was submitted i.e., on 07.01.2019 in the present case, exceeding 90 days, and also, the privilege of default bail was not given to the petitioner in view of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that subsequently, the petitioner was granted the privilege of bail, and he is on bail now.

4.

Learned APP while opposing the petition submitted that non-compliance of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. has no bearing to the cognizance order.

5.

The accused/petitioner was named in FIR, and after investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against him, and considering the material available against the petitioner prima-facie being satisfied, the learned jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 393 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a & 26 of the Arms Act against the petitioner.

6.

Considering the submission and upon perusal of record, this Court is convinced enough that the cognizance order cannot be said bad in eyes of law, for the simple reason that the petitioner was not given the benefit of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding default bail. Cognizance order also appears speaking. Accordingly, the present petition is devoid of any merit, and therefore, same stands dismissed.

7.

Let the copy of judgment be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.