Nadim Akhtar v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8691 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2187 Year-2016 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Nadim Akhtar S/o Abdul Sami R/o Village- Rampur, P.S.- Warisnagar, District- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar.

2.

Shabnam Parveen D/o Abdullah R/o Village- Chhapra, P.S.- Baruraj, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Parasmani For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 29-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Muzaffarpur Complaint Case No.2187 of 2016 registered under Sections 323, 406, 354(B), 498(A)/34, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, pending in the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (East), Muzaffarpur. The accusation is of torturing the opposite party no.2 by her husband (petitioner) and other in-laws for non fulfillment of the dowry demand of cash Rs.5,00,000/- and one four

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8691 of 2019(5) dt.29-07-2019 2/3 wheeler and also removing the opposite party no.2 from the matrimonial house by snatching her personal belongings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in fact, earlier, the opposite party no.2, who is the wife of the petitioner, had filed a complaint case regarding the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. Later on, the aforesaid case was compromised and the opposite party no.2 came at her matrimonial house but she again left her matrimonial house and filed the present complaint case within five months. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.

2 submits that, earlier, on the joint prayer, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna, for mediation and settlement of the dispute in between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 but the petitioner did not appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna, while the opposite party no.2 was present on two dates and, ultimately, the dispute could not be settled in between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8691 of 2019(5) dt.29-07-2019 3/3 Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from today and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T