Mangali Devi & Ors v. The State of Bihar, 2025
This decision reaffirms that Section 82/83 proceedings do not create a blanket embargo, unlike situations where the accused has been formally declared a Proclaimed Offender with due process.
Judgement Details
Court
Patna High Court
Date of Decision
22 September 2025
Judges
Justice Jitendra Kumar
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioners, along with co-accused Kedar Mahto, were accused of assaulting the informant’s mother with deadly weapons (iron rod, knife, spade), leading to her death after 10 days in the hospital.
-
A counter-case was registered on the same day of the occurrence by the petitioners against the informant's side for attempt to murder.
-
During the pendency of the anticipatory bail petition, proclamation proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC were initiated against the petitioners.
-
The State opposed the anticipatory bail, citing that proclaimed offender proceedings had commenced.
Issues
-
Can an anticipatory bail petition be entertained if proclamation proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC are initiated?
-
Does the initiation of such proceedings automatically bar the grant of anticipatory bail?
-
Whether counter-case, injuries on both sides, and lack of specific allegations merit consideration for bail?
Judgement
-
The Anticipatory bail granted.
-
The petitioners were directed to be released on bail of ₹10,000 each with two sureties, if arrested, subject to conditions.
-
The Court emphasized the need to assess each case on merits, even where proclamation proceedings exist.
-
The Court clarified that initiation of proclamation proceedings (u/Ss 82/83 CrPC) does not create an absolute bar on filing or granting anticipatory bail.
-
Referred to Asha Dubey where the Supreme Court held that liberty must be balanced against procedural declarations, and that courts must examine facts and circumstances in each case.
-
The petitioners were not absconding when bail was sought; the proclamation proceedings began during the pendency of their bail petitions, which negates wilful evasion.
-
The injuries were received on both sides, and a cross-case was filed immediately by the petitioners, suggesting a mutual scuffle.
-
There is No specific role was attributed to any of the petitioners; the allegations were general and omnibus.
Held
-
The Petition under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable even when proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC or 84/85 BNSS have been initiated.
-
Such initiation does not amount to a statutory bar unless the accused is declared a Proclaimed Offender with clear evidence of evasion.
-
The Facts like clean antecedents, counter-cases, general allegations, and injuries on both sides are valid considerations for anticipatory bail.
Analysis
-
The Patna High Court strikes a balanced approach between safeguarding the liberty of the accused and preventing abuse of process by wilful evaders.
-
This decision reaffirms that Section 82/83 proceedings do not create a blanket embargo, unlike situations where the accused has been formally declared a Proclaimed Offender with due process.
-
The judgment will have significant implications for counter-cases in rural and factional disputes, where both sides often face criminal complaints.
-
It distinguishes pending proclamation proceedings from completed ones where the accused has been declared absconding through a speaking order.