Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Manzoor Hussain @ Manjur Hussain vs The State Of Bihar on 8 April, 2026
1
ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 19022/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-08-2025
in CRLM No. 55955/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna]
MANZOOR HUSSAIN @ MANJUR HUSSAIN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 103789/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 103790/2026 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 08-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Satya Kam Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Yoshit Jain, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay of 135 days in filing the Special Leave Petition is
condoned.
2. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court
of Patna dated 14.08.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.55955/2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4865/2020, arising
from a complaint lodged by the wife of the younger brother of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2026.04.10
16:15:57 IST
the present petitioner. The complaint was lodged for the
Reason:
offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC).
2
3. Despite the fact that a private complaint was lodged, the
present petitioner went before the High Court and prayed for
anticipatory bail. We wonder what was the good ground or the
reason for the petitioner to pray for anticipatory bail in a
complaint case. Be that as it may, the High Court proceeded to
entertain the bail application preferred by the present
petitioner seeking anticipatory bail. The Criminal
Miscellaneous No.4865/2020 came to be allowed by the High
Court vide order dated 03.03.2020. By this order, the
petitioner was ordered to be released on bail in the event of
his arrest. The order dated 03.03.2020 reads as under:-
“Heard learned counsels for the petitioner,
complainant and the State.
The petitioner, being the elder brother of
the husband of the complainant is
apprehending arrest in a complaint case
wherein process has been directed to be
issued after cognizance being
taken for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of the IPC.
The prosecution case, as per the complaint
petition, is to the effect that the marriage
of the complainant was performed with co-
accused Mannan Hussain on 16.05.1996.
Subsequently,
they were blessed with a female child, but
after some time, further dowry demand of Rs.
5 lacs was made and due to non-fulfillment
of the same, the complainant was tortured
and ultimately, she was driven out from her
matrimonial house by all the accused persons
including the petitioner.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that marriage was performed 24
years prior to filing of the complaint
petition. It is further submitted that
thrust of accusation is against the husband
of the complainant and the petitioner lives
3
separately from the husband of the
complainant. Though, a statement has been
made in paragraph no.3 of the petition that
the petitioner is not having any criminal
antecedent, but learned counsel for the
complainant submits that the petitioner is
also made accused in other cases.
It appears that the matter was adjourned to
enable the learned counsel for the
petitioner to file counter affidavit with
regard to criminal history of the
petitioner, but she did not file the same.
Considering the thrust of accusation being
against the husband of the complainant and
relationship between the petitioner and the
complainant, let the above named petitioner
be released on anticipatory bail in the
event of arrest/surrender before the learned
Court below within a period of twelve weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of
like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kishanganj in connection with Complaint Case
No. 412 of 2019, subject to the condition as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.
P.C.”
4. It appears that after obtaining the order from the High Court
referred to above, the petitioner failed to surrender and
furnish bail bonds. In such circumstances, a non-bailable
warrant came to be issued. The issuance of non-bailable
warrant led the petitioner to prefer an application seeking
modification of the original order dated 03.03.2020 referred
to above. The High Court declined to grant any indulgence and
accordingly dismissed it. In such circumstances, the
petitioner is here before us with the present petition.
5. We are informed that the petitioner is a public servant. He is
superannuating on 31.07.2026. He has nothing to do with the
4
matrimonial dispute between husband and wife i.e. his younger
brother and his wife.
6. As observed aforesaid, there was no good reason for him to
prefer any anticipatory bail application because police is no
way concerned with a private complaint. Police has no powers
to arrest the accused unless at the time of issuing summons a
non-bailable warrant is also simultaneously issued.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we permit the petitioner to appear
before the Trial Court and execute appropriate bail bonds.
8. With the aforesaid, this Special Leave Petition stands
disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)