Patna High Court
Sohail AnjumversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court set aside the trial court's order refusing to confirm provisional anticipatory bail and confirmed the bail, directing efforts for reconciliation.
Summary
The petitioner, Sohail Anjum, filed a petition under Cr. Misc. No. 23430 of 2018 seeking to quash the order dated 13 September 2017 of the Special Judge CBI-1-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna, which refused to confirm the provisional anticipatory bail previously granted by the Patna High Court on 19 May 2015. The High Court had directed the trial court to attempt reconciliation between the husband and wife and to confirm the bail if settlement was achieved. The trial court declined confirmation on the ground that the informant (the wife) was not willing to reside with the petitioner and that the petitioner allegedly did not accept her conditions. The petitioner contended he was ready to keep his wife and children with dignity and had made a partial settlement payment, urging confirmation of bail. After hearing both sides, the High Court set aside the trial court's order, confirmed the provisional bail, and directed the trial court to take steps for reconciliation, allowing the petition.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate legal standard for confirming provisional anticipatory bail under the circumstances?
- Whether the trial court's refusal to confirm bail, based on the informant's unwillingness to cohabit, is justified?
- Whether the High Court can direct the trial court to pursue reconciliation between the parties.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- provisional bail
- reconciliation
- Criminal Procedure Code
- family dispute
- bail confirmation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23430 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-470 Year-2014 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
Sohail Anjum S/o Late Anwar Latif, R/o New Karim Ganj, Road No. 3/B
Gaya, P.S.- Civil Line Gaya, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Dr. Sufia Perween, W/o Sohail Anjum, D/o Juhil Akhtar, R/o Mohalla-
Millat colony, sector-2, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
7 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. This application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for quashing the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the
learned Special Judge CBI-1-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna in
Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 470 of 2014, G.R. No. 5010 of
2014 whereby he has not confirmed the provisional bail of the
petitioner granted by this Court vide order dated 19.05.2015
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21525 of 2015 wherein it was directed
to the Court concerned to make efforts for reconciliation
between the husband and the wife. It was further observed that
if the dispute is resolved, the provisional bail granted to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23430 of 2018(7) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
petitioner shall be confirmed and if the dispute does not resolve
the court shall pass order in accordance with law. The Trial
Court, vide order dated 13.09.2017, did not confirm the
provisional bail granted to the petitioner on the ground that the
informant is not ready to reside with the petitioner and it
appears that petitioner is not ready to accept the conditions put
by the informant which shows that he is not ready for
settlement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was and is ready to keep his wife with the children
with full dignity and honour according to his status. He had filed
an application before the Court concerned to settle the matter in
this case and even the case was settled between the parties and
the petitioner had made demand draft of Rs. 2,50,000/- out of
Rs. 7,50,000/- but O.P. No. 2 denied to settle the matter due to
misadvice. Since the petitioner is always ready to keep his wife
and both children with full dignity and honour and also ready to
settle the matter with the informant, the anticipatory bail granted
to the petitioner by this Court is liable to be confirmed and the
order of the learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that in the facts
and circumstances, appropriate order may be passed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23430 of 2018(7) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
5. Despite sufficient opportunity given to O.P. No. 2,
no one is present on her behalf.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned A.P.P. for the State, it appears that this Court had
granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, vide order
dated 19.05.2015 with direction to the learned Trial Court for
making efforts for reconciliation between husband and wife.
The settlement cannot be done without co-operation of the
parties. Petitioner is ready to keep his wife and both children
and is also ready to settle the matter with the informant.
7. In view of the said facts and circumstances,
impugned order dated 13.09.2017 is set aside and the
provisional bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed. The
learned Trial Court may take steps for reconciliation/settlement
between the petitioner and the informant/O.P. No. 2.
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
rakhi/-
U T
Checking your session…