Md. Shahnawaz v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9045 of 2015 Arising out of PS.Case No. -50 Year- 2013 Thana -MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE DistrictMADHEPURA ====================================================== Md. Shahnawaz, Son of Md. Ali @ Langdu Mohammad, resident of Village - Dumariya, Pashchim Tola, Bishariya, P.S. - Raniganj, District - Araria.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Nikhat Pravin @ Pravin Khatoon, Wife of Md. Shahnawaz, daughter of Md. Umar, resident of Village - Dumariya, Pashchim Tola, Bishahariya P.S. - Raniganj, District - Araria. At Present resident of Village - Puraini, P.S. - Srinagar, District - Madhepura.

.... .... Opposite Parties.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kr.Singh 1(App) For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-09-2015 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, complainant and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 50 of 2013 for the offences instituted under Sections 498(A) of the I.P.C. and 3⁄4 of the D. P. Act. The accusations are of torture for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry by the accused persons and performing second marriage by the petitioner.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties. It is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9045 of 2015 (4) dt.03-09-2015 2/2 further submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.

On behalf of the State and complainant it has been submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and there is an order passed by the learned court below where the petitioner has been directed to give Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the complainant but for the last one year no maintenance amount has been given to the complainant. In respect to the same, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a revision application against the said maintenance order has been preferred by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court but there is no stay in favour of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in connection with Complaint Case No. 50 of 2013, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M, Madhepura. U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T