Md. Firoz Alam @ Md. Firoz @ Firoz Alam v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8879 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2508 Year-2017 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District- Katihar ====================================================== Md. Firoz Alam @ Md. Firoz @ Firoz Alam, Son of Md. Jalaluddin Resident of Village - Kusaul ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar, 2.

Sayeesta Khatoon Wife of Md. Firoz, Daughter of Md. Idris, Resident of Village - Kusaul, P.S.- Azamnagar, Distt.- Katihar, At Present Resident of village Maniknagar, Gouripur, P.S.- Pranpur, ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Renu Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2019 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with C.A. Case No. 2508 of 2017, registered under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar.

The accusation is of torturing of the complainant by her husband (Petitioner) and other in-laws due to nonfulfillment of demand of cash of Rs. 2 Lakhs and to remove her from her matrimonial house along with her child after

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8879 of 2019(3) dt.08-05-2019 2/3 snatching her personal belongings.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is the husband of the complainant and due to misunderstanding, the complainant lodged the present case with false allegation. Further submission is that the matter was referred to Mediation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna, but the dispute could not be settled in between the complainant and the petitioner, who are wife and husband. Further submission is that, in fact, the petitioner does not want to keep his wife (O.P.No.2) as she has a bad character. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/O.P. No.2 submits that during the Mediation, the petitioner appeared before the Mediator only one occasion and on that date, he was not ready to take the complainant/O.P. No.2.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8879 of 2019(3) dt.08-05-2019 3/3 being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

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