Sabil Hassan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16107 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Madhubani ====================================================== Sabil Hassan Son of Late Md. Jaifirul Resident of Village- Ajrakbe, Simari Chand Tola, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Patna 2.
Shanaj Fatima Wife of Sabil Hassan Resident of Village- Ajrakbe, Simari Chand Tola, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Ravi Prakash, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr. Shubhash Kumar Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bishweshwar Ram ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 74 of 2020 dated 02.10.2020 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 323, 341, 498A, 420, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the informant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16107 of 2024(2) dt.28-03-2024 2/3 this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. It is the further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the informant and he has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of "Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182." Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 498A of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgments in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 and Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the allegation being general and omnibus against the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16107 of 2024(2) dt.28-03-2024 3/3 event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Madhubani in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 74 of 2020, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with further condition :- (i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
8. If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the Court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of reconciliation or one time settlement.
9. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Gautam/- U T