Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8074/2017rejected

Shams Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-22Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8074 of 2017 (4) dt.22-06-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8074 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -71 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA PS DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Shams Alam, Son of Abdul Gaffar, Resident of Village- Tajpur Mulki, P.S.- Kesariya, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Sahin Begam, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Mahila Police Station Case No. 71 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 341, 323, 406, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against this petitioner and no specific overt act is attributed to him. In fact, the petitioner happens to be the husband of the informant is innocent and has not committed any offence. The petitioner has tried his level best to bring her wife but she herself refused to live with the petitioner and he is still ready to keep his wife with full

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8074 of 2017 (4) dt.22-06-2017 honour and dignity. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is allegation of assault and demand of dowry against the petitioner. Moreover, mediation has also been failed between the parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T