Court holds that once accused surrenders and is released on bail, anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable; directs petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail
In a significant judgment delivered on September 25, 2026, the Patna High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar, dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Mainuddin Mansoori in connection with a criminal case under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court reaffirmed the well-settled legal principle that anticipatory bail is not maintainable when the accused has already surrendered before the court, furnished bail bond, and is released on bail, thereby remaining in constructive custody through sureties.
The petitioner, Mainuddin Mansoori, had earlier been granted anticipatory bail on April 2, 2025, by the same Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18332 of 2025 in relation to Gaura P.S. Case No. 54 of 2024. Following the order, he surrendered and furnished his bail bond. However, his bail bond was subsequently cancelled on the ground of concealment of one of his criminal antecedents-Complaint Case No. 2274 of 2021-which he failed to disclose inadvertently. This cancellation led to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him.
After withdrawing a Criminal Revision against the cancellation of the bail bond, the petitioner moved the Patna High Court seeking anticipatory bail once again. The Court, after hearing submissions from the petitioner's counsel, the Additional Public Prosecutor, and the informant's counsel, held that the petitioner's anticipatory bail plea was not maintainable. The Court emphasized that once the accused surrenders and is released on bail, he is deemed to be in constructive custody of the court through sureties, and hence cannot claim apprehension of arrest for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail.
The judgment drew heavily on precedents set by the Supreme Court of India, including:
- Manish Jain v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board (2020) 20 SCC 123, which held that a person released on bail is already in constructive custody and cannot seek anticipatory bail.
- Kanaksinh Mohansinh Mangrola v. State of Gujarat (2006) 9 SCC 540, which recognized that surrender before the court amounts to custody for bail consideration.
- Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559, which elucidated the concept of custody as submission to court jurisdiction and physical presence before the court.
- Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India (2000) 3 SCC 409, which explained that bail releases the accused from physical internment but retains constructive control through sureties.
- Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar (2005) 1 SCC 608, which underscored that physical appearance before the Magistrate amounts to custody for bail applications.
Justice Kumar noted that the petitioner's failure to disclose one antecedent was inadvertent but emphasized that the remedy was not to seek anticipatory bail again but to surrender and apply for regular bail. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to surrender within two weeks and file a regular bail application, directing the lower court to consider the regular bail application on the same day of its filing.
This ruling clarifies the legal position regarding anticipatory bail applications post-surrender and bail, reinforcing the judiciary's stand on the construct of custody and bail in criminal procedure.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable where the accused had already surrendered pursuant to earlier anticipatory bail order, furnished bail bond and was released on bail, since such accused remains in constructive custody of law through sureties; remedy is to surrender and seek regular bail.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 384, 438, 439 of the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Mainuddin Mansoori v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994748
