Patna High Court

Moglal HemramversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANIL KUMAR SINHA

Holding

Anticipatory bail is not entitled after a twenty‑year delay and after processes under CrPC sections 82 and 83 have been issued.

Summary

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in 2026 for offences alleged in a 2004 complaint (IPC sections 323, 498A, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act section 3/4). The court questioned why bail was applied for after a twenty‑year gap since the complaint and alleged cognizance. Counsel misrepresented that cognizance was taken in 2024, whereas the court verified it was actually taken in 2004 and that processes under CrPC sections 82 and 83 had already been issued. On discovering the misrepresentation, the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to anticipatory bail after such a delay and after issuance of processes. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted after a twenty‑year lapse since cognizance of the offence and after issuance of processes under CrPC sections 82 and 83.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82, 83
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 506

Subjects

anticipatory bail
delay in cognizance
misrepresentation
CrPC section 82
CrPC section 83
IPC offences
dowry prohibition

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84561 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2004 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE
                                                     District- Munger
                 ======================================================
           1.     Moglal Hemram Son of Late Chote Lal Hemram Resident of Village-
                  Khajuria, P.S.- Katoria, District- Banka
           2.    Ratni Marandi Wife of Late Chote Lal Hemram Resident of Village-
                 Khajuria, P.S.- Katoria, District- Banka
                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Bihar
           2.     Shanti Devi Wife of Moglal Hemram Resident of Village- Khajuria, P.S.-
                  Katoria, District- Banka. At present residing at Radodih, P.S.- Kharagpur,
                  District- Munger
                                                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :     Mr.Surya Narayan Sah
                 For the Opposite Party/s :     Mrs.Pronoti Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   24-04-2026                  1. The matter was taken up on 21.04.2026 for grant of

                   anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 282C

                   of 2004 disclosing offence under Section 323, 498A, 506 of the

                   I.P.C. and Section ¾ of the D.P. Act. When the matter was taken

                   up and specific question was asked by the Court that why the

                   petitioner has moved for anticipatory bail after 20 years of the

                   date of filing of complaint and order of cognizance, upon which,

                   learned counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that

                   cognizance was taken in the year 2024 after delay of twenty

                   years. Upon his submission and statement made in the bail

                   application this Court passed order for grant of bail taking into
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84561 of 2025(5) dt.24-04-2026
                                                         2/2




                       account the fact that there was delay of about twenty years in

                       taking cognizance of the complaint.

                                    2. When the order was dictated and typed and case

                       record was produced before me for signing of the order, this

                       Court re-verified the fact regarding date of cognizance and this

                       Court found that cognizance was taken in 2004 itself and in the

                       meanwhile processes under Section 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C. were

                       also issued. All these facts were misrepresented by learned

                       counsel before this Court and on his statement that cognizance

                       was taken in the year 2024 this Court granted bail.

                                    3. Accordingly, this Court did not sign the order and

                       fresh order is being passed rejecting the bail application on the

                       ground that after twenty years of order taking cognizance and

                       after issuance of processes under Section 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. the

                       petitioner has filed anticipatory bail application which in my

                       opinion the petitioner is not entitled to.

                                    4. In the result, the prayer for bail is rejected.



                                                (Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…