Patna High Court
Md. Rashid Hussain @ Md. Hussain @ RinkuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The High Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner notwithstanding the delay, as he has no specific role in the alleged offences and possesses a clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Rashid Hussain, a brother‑in‑law of the complainant, was implicated in a dowry‑harassment complaint (Cr. Misc. No.1053 of 2012) alleging offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC. He had earlier obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court in 2014 but failed to surrender and later filed a fresh anticipatory bail application, which the Sessions Judge rejected on the ground of delay. The petitioner argued that he had no involvement in the alleged acts and possessed a clean antecedent. The High Court, noting the earlier grant of anticipatory bail, the petitioner’s lack of direct involvement, and his clean record, decided to grant anticipatory bail again, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The order directs the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and comply with several conditions, including appearing before the trial court and not tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted despite the petitioner’s delay in surrendering after the earlier grant.
- Whether the petitioner, as a brother‑in‑law with no alleged participation, is liable to be arrested under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are appropriate in this case.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- IPC 498A
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- delay in surrender
- high court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12488 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1053 Year-2012 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE
District- Rohtas
======================================================
Md. Rashid Hussain @ Md. Hussain @ Rinku S/O Late Md.
Mustakim@Niyamuddin Hussain R/O Vill.- Saheen, Sherghati, P.S.-
Sherghati, Dist.- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Samjida Khatoon W/O Ragib Hussain @ Pintu @ Rajeev Hussain, D/O
Kamruddin Khan R/O Vill.- Tilauthu Bazar, P.S.- Tilauthu, Dist.- Rohtas.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No.1053 of 2012, dated
18.09.2021 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, Samjida Khatoon
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12488 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/5
filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram,
alleging that after her marriage to Hussain three years ago, her
husband and in-laws demanded Rs.50,000 as dowry to start a
shop. Upon her family’s inability to meet the demand, she was
allegedly subjected to physical and mental cruelty. After the
birth of her daughter, the accused persons’ behavior allegedly
worsened, they began searching for a second marriage for her
husband, and about ten days prior to filing the complaint, they
allegedly attempted to burn her by pouring kerosene oil.
Eventually, she was allegedly assaulted, her belongings were
snatched, and she was driven out of her matrimonial home. On
the basis of the complaint, Complaint Case No. 1053 of 2012
was registered under Sections 498A, 323, and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioner and others, and investigation
was initiated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in no way connected with the day-to-day affairs of
the complainant and her husband, as the petitioner, being the
brother-in-law, is residing at a different place and maintains a
separate mess. Upon coming to know about the allegations
levelled against him, the petitioner moved an application for
grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12488 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/5
Rohtas at Sasaram, and vide order dated 26.03.2014 passed in
A.B.P. No. 619 of 2014, he was granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the petitioner went out of the State
to earn his livelihood. Due to lack of knowledge and awareness
of the legal implications, he could not surrender and furnish the
bail bonds. After returning from his place of work, he filed a
fresh anticipatory bail application, as the period for surrender
had already elapsed and did not have the knowledge that the
case is still pending. However, vide impugned order dated
03.11.2025, the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram
refused to entertain the said anticipatory bail application on the
ground of delay. It is submitted that the earlier order itself
reflects that there is nothing against the petitioner, who is
merely the brother-in-law of the complainant, has been
implicated in the instant case, while no specific role is
attributed.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the learned Trial Court after appreciating the conduct and
complicity of this petitioner, had granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail, therefore, taking into account the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12488 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
4/5
consideration so made and as also by looking at the allegations
levelled against this petitioner and the petitioner having clean
antecedent, accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram,
Rohtas, in connection with Complaint Case No.1053 of 2012,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12488 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
5/5
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…