Allowed¶24

Sohail Anjum v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC21 Apr 2026CR. MISC./23430/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition allowed; provisional anticipatory bail confirmed; order dated 13.09.2017 of Special Judge CBI-1-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna set aside; refusal to confirm provisional bail granted 19.05.2015 in Cr. Misc. No. 21525 of 2015; reconciliation/settlement between husband and wife; Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 470 of 2014, G.R. No. 5010 of 2014; petitioner Sohail Anjum; informant/O.P. No. 2 Dr. Sufia Perween absent despite opportunity; Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra; Patna High Court; decided 21-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing petition allowed: order dated 13.09.2017 set aside, provisional anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 19.05.2015 confirmed, and Trial Court permitted to take steps for reconciliation/settlement between the petitioner and the informant/O.P. No. 2. ¶24

Sohail Anjum Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.09.2017 of the learned Special Judge CBI-1-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna declining to confirm the petitioner's provisional anticipatory bail should be quashed and the provisional bail confirmed.

¶15

Court's answer

Settlement cannot be effected without the co-operation of the parties; the petitioner is ready to keep his wife and both children and to settle the matter with the informant.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 13.09.2017 is set aside and the provisional bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed.

¶23

Key takeaways

The learned Trial Court may take steps for reconciliation/settlement between the petitioner and the informant/O.P. No. 2.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.) allowed Criminal Miscellaneous No.23430 of 2018 filed by Sohail Anjum 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 the Trial Court had declined to confirm the provisional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner by the High Court vide order dated 19.05.2015 in Cr. Misc. No. 21525 of 2015, which had directed efforts for reconciliation between the husband and wife, bail to stand confirmed if the dispute resolved. The Trial Court had refused confirmation because the informant was not ready to reside with the petitioner. Holding that settlement cannot be done without co-operation of the parties, and finding the petitioner ready to keep his wife and both children with dignity and honour and to settle the matter with the informant (O.P. No. 2, Dr. Sufia Perween, who did not appear despite sufficient opportunity), the Court set aside the impugned order, confirmed the provisional bail, and left the Trial Court free to take steps for reconciliation/settlement between the petitioner and the informant.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23430 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-470 Year-2014 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sohail Anjum S/o Late Anwar Latif, R/o New Karim Ganj, Road No. 3/B Gaya, P.S.- Civil Line Gaya, District- Gaya.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Bihar

¶8

Dr. Sufia Perween, W/o Sohail Anjum, D/o Juhil Akhtar, R/o MohallaMillat colony, sector-2, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶13

7 21-04-2026

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶15

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

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23430 of 2018(7) dt.21-04-2026 2/3

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that in the facts and circumstances, appropriate order may be passed.

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23430 of 2018(7) dt.21-04-2026 3/3

¶21

Despite sufficient opportunity given to O.P. No. 2, no one is present on her behalf.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.

¶25

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)

¶26

rakhi/-

¶27

U T

Sohail Anjum v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohail Anjum v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar @ Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Faruque Abdullah Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Naresh Pandit Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Lalan Pathak @ Kamal Nayan Pathak Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Bisheshwar Ray Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.