Alamgir @ Mohammad Alamgir v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18570 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2024 Thana- AMDABAD District- Katihar ====================================================== Alamgir @ Mohammad Alamgir Son of Azizul Rahman village- Sukhasan Durgapur, ps- Barari, dist- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sanwara Khatoon Daughter of Munsahak Village- Jiyamari, ps- Amdabad, Dist- katihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammed Arif For the Informant :

Mr. Kunwar Ajit Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 13-08-2025

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Amdabad Police Station Case No. 57 of 2024, dated 23.03.2024, disclosing offences under Sections 498(a)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the informant on 03.03.2024. Just after the marriage, the petitioner started demanding dowry and due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry, the informant was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18570 of 2025(4) dt.13-08-2025 2/3 tortured mentally and physically. It is further alleged that the signature of informant was forcibly taken by the petitioner on a blank paper. Finally, the informant was ousted from the matrimonial home.

4. The matter was referred to the mediation centre vide order, dated 14.05.2025, by this Court, however, the mediation failed.

5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 23 years, but he was forced to marry the informant/complainant, who is elder to the petitioner and at the time of marriage, she was aged about 29 years. He next submits that from Annexure-2, it appears that the informant has already divorced the petitioner by way of Kholanama before the Punches.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that Khulanama was prepared unilaterally by the petitioner after taking the signature of the informant forcibly. He next submits that the petitioner never approached for Khulanama.

7. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18570 of 2025(4) dt.13-08-2025 3/3 parties and taking into consideration the fact that within one years of marriage there is demand of dowry and tortured to the informant, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

8. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ashwani/- U T