Patna High Court – Orders
Juman Khatoon @ Juman Khatun vs The State Of Bihar on 22 July, 2026
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18078 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2018 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran
======================================================
Juman Khatoon @ Juman Khatun D/O Jahir Hussain @ Md. Jahir Resident
Of Village- Dihu Tola, P.S.- Madhuban, Distt- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. M.d. Baharul Hussain @ Baharu Hussain S/o Ajahar Miyan @ Md. Ajahar
Hussain Resident of Jogoliya Tola Nandi Ram Chhapra, P.S.- Madhuban,
Distt- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 22-07-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present application has been filed seeking
cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Opposite Party
No. 2 vide order dated 16.11.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9749
of 2019 by the then Chief Justice of the High Court of
Judicature at Patna, in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No.
115 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The following order was passed on 16.11.2019 in
Cr. Misc. No. 9749 of 2019:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18078 of 2020(3) dt.22-07-2026
2/8“Instant petition under section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code has been moved
for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.115
of 2018, dated 03.07.2018 registered at
Police Station Madhuban, District East
Champaran under sections 498A of the
Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel
for the informant-opposite party no.2. I
have also perused the relevant record of the
case, necessary for adjudication of this
petition.
The dispute is between the husband
and the wife.
It is seen that on 9th of May, 2019,
petitioner was granted interim protection by
this Court and that he is fully cooperating in
the matter.
It is settled law that the grant of bail
is the discretion of the court, but the
discretion must be exercised not in
opposition to, but in accordance with the
well established principles of law.
The law laid down in Gudikanti
Narasimhulu Versus public prosecutor,
(1978) 1 SCC 240 by Justice Krishna Iyer
explains the judicial discretion as- the
unspoken but inescapable, silent command
of our judicial system, and those who
exercise it will remember that discretion
when to a court of justice, means sound
discretion guided by law. It must be
governed by rule, not by humor, it must not
be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal
and regular.
The similar observation was made by
the Hon’ble Supreme court in another case
of Jai Prakash Singh vs State of Bihar
and another, reported in 2012 Cri. L.J.
2101.
The Courts owe more than verbal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18078 of 2020(3) dt.22-07-2026
3/8
respect to the principle that punishment
begins after conviction and that every man
is deemed to be innocent until duly tried
and duly found guilty.
In the case of Sidharam
Saltingappa Mhetre Vs. State of
Maharastra (2011) 1 SCC 694, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :
“Personal liberty is very precious
fundamental be curtailed only when it
becomes imperative according to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case”. While relying upon its decision
rendered by its Constitution Bench in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565, laid down the following
parameters for grant of bail:-
“111. No inflexible guidelines or
straitjacket formula can be provided
for grant or refusal of anticipatory
bail. We are clearly of the view that
no attempt should be made to
provide rigid and inflexible
guidelines in this respect because all
circumstances and situations of
future cannot be clearly visualized
for the grant or refusal of
anticipatory bail. In consonance with
the legislative intention the grant or
refusal of anticipatory bail should
necessarily depend on facts and
circumstances of each case. As aptly
observed in the Constitution Bench
decision in Sibbia‘s case (supra) that
the High Court or the Court of
Sessions to exercise their
jurisdiction under section 438
Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of
their discretion which by their long
training and experience they are
ideally suited to do. In any event,
this is the legislative mandate which
we are bound to respect and
honour.”
Going through the provisions of Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18078 of 2020(3) dt.22-07-2026
4/8
438 Cr.P.C., the four factors, which are
relevant for considering the application for
grant of anticipatory bail, are :
(i) the nature and gravity or
seriousness of accusation as
apprehended by the applicant;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant
including the fact as to whether he
has, on conviction by a Court,
previously undergone
imprisonment for a term in respect
of any cognizable offence;
(iii) the likely object of the accusation
to humiliate or malign the
reputation of the applicant by
having him so arrested; and
(iv) the possibility of the appellant, if
granted anticipatory bail, fleeing
from justice.
In State of Maharashtra vs. Mohd.
Sajid Hussain 2008 (1) SCC (Crl.) 176,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
examining the principles governing grant of
anticipatory bail, held that one of the four
factors relevant for considering the
application for grant of anticipatory bail is
the possibility of the applicant, if granted
anticipatory bail fleeing from justice.
The Apex Court in Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) laid down
certain factors and parameters to be
considered while considering application
for anticipatory bail :
“122. The following factors and
parameters can be taken into
consideration while dealing with the
anticipatory bail:
i. The nature and gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the
accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
ii. The antecedents of the applicant
including the fact as to whether the
accused has previously undergone
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18078 of 2020(3) dt.22-07-2026
5/8imprisonment on conviction by a
Court in respect of any cognizable
offence;
iii. The possibility of the applicant to
flee from justice;
iv. The possibility of the accused’s
likelihood to repeat similar or the
other offences.
v. Where the accusations have been
made only with the object of
injuring or humiliating the applicant
by arresting him or her.
vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory
bail particularly in cases of large
magnitude affecting a very large
number of people.
vii. The courts must evaluate the
entire available material against the
accused very carefully. The court
must also clearly comprehend the
exact role of the accused in the case.
The cases in which accused is
implicated with the help of sections
34 and 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, the court should consider with
even greater care and caution
because over – implication in the
cases is a matter of
commonknowledge and concern;
viii. While considering the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail, a balance
has to be struck between two factors
namely, no prejudice should be
caused to the free, fair and full
investigation and there should be
prevention of harassment,
humiliation and unjustified detention
of the accused;
ix. The court to consider reasonable
apprehension of tampering of the
witness or apprehension of threat to
the complainant;
x. Frivolity in prosecution should
always be considered and it is only
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18078 of 2020(3) dt.22-07-2026
6/8
the element of genuineness that shall
have to be considered in the matter
of grant of bail and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in
the normal course of events, the
accused is entitled to an order of
bail.
The court granting bail should
exercise its discretion in a judicious manner
and not as a matter of course. Though at the
stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merit of the case need
not be undertaken, there is a need to
indicate in such orders reasons for prima
facie concluding why bail was being
granted particularly where the accused is
charged of having committed a serious
offence.
In Vilas Pandurang Pawar Versus
State of Maharastra (2012) 8 SCC 795
also it was held that while considering
application for bail, scope for appreciation
of evidence and other material on record is
limited. Court is not expected to indulge in
critical analysis of evidence on record.
In the light of the above facts and
circumstances, the present petition is
allowed.
The Petitioner, namely, Md. Baharul
Hussain @ Baharu Hussain, son of Ajahar
Miyan @ Md. Ajahar Hussain, Resident of
Village- Jogoliya Tola, Nandi Ram
Chhapra, Police Station- Madhuban,
District- East Champaran, in the event of
his arrest, be enlarged on bail subject to the
following terms and conditions:
(a) The petitioner shall furnish a bail
bond of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty
five thousand) with one surety each
of the like amount, to the satisfaction
of the arresting authority.
(b) The petitioner is directed to join
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18078 of 2020(3) dt.22-07-2026
7/8the investigation of the case as and
when called for by the Investigating
Officer in accordance with law.
(c) The petitioner shall not hamper
the investigation in any manner
whatsoever or shall influence any of
the witnesses.
(d) The petitioner shall facilitate in
the early completion of the
investigation and otherwise fulfill all
other statutory terms and conditions,
so prescribed, in accordance with
law.
(e) The petitioner shall not leave
India without prior permission of
trial Court.
(f) The petitioner may seek regular
bail in accordance with law.
(g) Liberty reserved to the State to
approach the Court seeking
cancellation of anticipatory bail, if
so required, subsequently.
Any observation made herein shall
not be construed to be an expression on the
merits of the matter.
Petition stands disposed of in the
above terms.”
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that in terms of the mediation settlement,
Opposite Party No. 2 was required to pay a sum of Rs.
4,00,000/- to the petitioner. It is submitted that Opposite Party
No. 2 has paid only Rs. 2,00,000/- and has failed to pay the
remaining balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18078 of 2020(3) dt.22-07-2026
8/8
application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
approach the learned Magistrate by filing an appropriate
application regarding non-payment of the balance amount as
agreed upon in the mediation settlement.
6. In the event such an application is filed, the learned
Magistrate shall consider and decide the same expeditiously. If,
upon verification, the learned Magistrate finds that the balance
amount has not been paid by Opposite Party No. 2, the learned
Magistrate shall proceed to cancel the bail bonds furnished by
Opposite Party No. 2 in accordance with law.
7. The application, if filed by the petitioner, shall be
disposed of by the learned Magistrate within a period of one
month from the date of its filing.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari
through FAX or e-mail for immediate compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
