Jharkhand High Court dismissed the third anticipatory bail plea of Harish Kumar Pathak, stressing that “judicial decorum no less than legal propriety” must prevail and ruling that there can be no revival of ‘reasons to believe’ in repeat applications.
The High Court of Jharkhand delivered an important ruling regarding the maintainability of successive anticipatory bail applications by rejecting a third plea from Harish Kumar Pathak.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, who presided over the case, determined that there were no fresh grounds to consider the application, as the matters raised had already been addressed in two earlier rejected applications.
The case involves serious allegations, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial propriety and the limited scope for re-examining bail requests without new circumstances.
Harish Kumar Pathak sought pre-arrest bail in relation to Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 154/2016, which was initially registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), including 354, 341, 342, 323, 325, 307, 504, and 506.
Earlier, On May 17, 2018, Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) was added to the charges. This marked Pathak’s third attempt to obtain anticipatory bail from the High Court. His first application (A.B.A. No. 4304 of 2018) was denied on December 18, 2018, and the second application (A.B.A. No. 14 of 2019) was also rejected on November 26, 2019.
Following these rejections, he filed a petition (Cr.M.P. No. 1664 of 2019) to quash the entire criminal proceeding, which was dismissed as withdrawn on August 5, 2025.
Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, representing the petitioner, argued that new grounds had arisen to justify the latest application. He claimed that Pathak had been exonerated in a departmental proceeding, which should be viewed favorably.
He also referenced the medical report, suggesting that the cause of the deceased’s death was due to an “illness” rather than a “brutal assault.”
Furthermore, he pointed out certain statements in the State’s counter-affidavit from the earlier quashing petition that he believed supported Pathak’s case.
In contrast, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the Special Public Prosecutor, strongly opposed the bail application. He argued that the chargesheet against Pathak was based on investigations conducted by both local police and the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.).
Kumar highlighted discrepancies in the records, noting that the deceased was arrested on October 3, 2016, while the official arrest date was recorded as October 4, 2016. He emphasized that the issues raised by the petitioner’s counsel had already been addressed in previous anticipatory bail applications, asserting that there was nothing new to warrant a fresh application.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi commenced his analysis by acknowledging the “admitted position” that two prior anticipatory bail applications had been rejected.
Also Read: BREAKING | Toxic Cough Syrup: Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Probe into Child Deaths
The Court then examined the legal principles that govern successive anticipatory bail applications, observing that Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) does not allow for the revival of the “reasons to believe” regarding apprehension of arrest once an application has been denied.
The Court stated,
“Upon making a close survey of the section 482 of the BNSS, there could be no slim doubt that the words and languages employed in the Section do not even remotely foreshadow that application for anticipatory bail, could be harvested as there could be no revival of ‘reasons to believe’ of apprehension of arrest in the subsequent application when the earlier application has suffered rejection.”
The judgment differentiated the scope of anticipatory bail (Section 482) from regular bail for an accused in custody (Section 483), noting that the latter allows for repeated requests based on new grounds.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahadolal v. Administrator General, the Court emphasized the significance of judicial decorum and legal certainty. It quoted the apex court’s warning that judicial anarchy would ensue if judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction began overriding one another’s decisions.
The judgment included the observation,
“Judicial decorum no less than legal propriety forms the basis of ‘judicial procedure’ and ‘if one thing is more necessary in law than any other thing it is the quality or certainty’ and that ‘that quality would totally disappear if Judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction in the High Court start overruling one another’s decisions’.”
In conclusion, the High Court found no merit in the new application, reaffirming that a chargesheet had been filed and all arguments made by the petitioner had been previously addressed.
Finding no new grounds, the Court issued its final ruling,
“There is no fresh ground to entertain this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is rejected.”
Case Title: Harish Kumar Pathak vs The State of Jharkhand
Read Attachment