Raviul Hassan Ansari @ Rabil Hassan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2392 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2018 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Raviul Hassan Ansari @ Rabil Hassan, son of Late Babujan Ansari, Resident of Village- Bangra, P.S.- Chakiya, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Anguri Khatoon, D/O Late najamauddin Kaisar @ Kaisar Ansari. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pancha Nand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chakia P.S. Case No. 103 of 2018 registered under Sections 498(A), 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran.

The accusation is of torturing the informantopposite party no.2 by her husband and in-laws due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and removing her along with two minor children from matrimonial house snatching her personal belongings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2392 of 2019(4) dt.03-05-2019 2/2 fact, Nikah of the petitioner was performed with the informant -opposite party no.2 but the informant-opposite party no. 2 divorced the petitioner on 10.03.2018 and thereafter, only to give undue pressure, she has lodged the present case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no. 2 submits that at the time of removing the opposite party no. 2 from her matrimonial house, her husband and in-laws had forcibly taken her signature on the plain papers, which has been manipulated as divorce paper later on.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T