Md. Abdul @ Md. Abdullah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21011 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2019 Thana- SABAUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== MD. ABDUL @ MD. ABDULLAH Son of Md. Amjad Resident of VillageKurudiah, Police Station- Goradih, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Veena Rani Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 20-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of the Muslim Women Protection Right of Marriage Act, 2019.

It is a case of cruelty and harassment and torture by this petitioner to the informant, namely, Nusrat Khatoon It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that petitioner has got clean antecedent. He further submits that he is ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity but the petitioner is not able to give any amount for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21011 of 2021(6) dt.20-07-2022 2/2 maintenance to the informant and her two minor children. Learned APP appearing for the State opposed the anticipatory bail and submitted that she is the mother of two children and are living together with the informant. The petitioner has no care to look after the informant as well as her minor children. The informant has no means of livelihood and she is at the verge of starvation.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the informant's two minor children are living with her and the petitioner being the husband of the informant is not maintaining properly to the informant as well as her minor children and he is also not inclined to give any maintenance amount and the main responsibility is remained upon the petitioner who has failed to do so, the petitioner is not entitled to get the anticipatory bail.

Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T