Md. Abdul v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6057 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-662 Year-2018 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ====================================================== Md. Abdul, aged about 30 years, Sex Male, Son of Haji Mushtaque Resident of Village - Bandob, P.S - Madanpur, O.P, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 04-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 342, 504, 498A-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in connection with Araria (Madanpur) P.S. Case No. 662 of 2018.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and accusations made in the first information report which are in any case general and omnibus in nature, are denied. It is submitted that it was the informant who had left the matrimonial house and the petitioner attempted unsuccessfully to bring her back. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to keep the informant with due dignity and honour. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Be that as it may, in the event of the petitioner's arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6057 of 2019(2) dt.04-02-2019 2/2 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Araria (Madanpur) P.S. Case No. 662 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and with further conditions -- (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii) That the petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned. (iv) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

BT/Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) U T