Sheikh Mannu @ Md. Mannu @ Sheikh Manu v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8234 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2955 Year- 2013 Thana -EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- EASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. SHEIKH MANNU @ MD. MANNU @ SHEIKH MANU, son of Sheikh Badri, resident of village- Tansariya Madhopur, Police StationTurkauliya, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Amirun Nesha, W/o Sheikh Manu, R/o Village- Madhopur, P.S.- Majholia, Dist- West Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Tondon, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Sri Arun Kumar, APP For the Opposite Party No.2: Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 4/ 01-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

The Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No.2955 of 2013 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 498-A, 323, 504 Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Motihari.

Petitioner is husband of the complainant.

As per Complaint Petition, marriage of the petitioner with Opposite Party No.2 took place on 26.05.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner committed physical and mental torture with her and finally ousted from the house.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8234 of 2017 (4) dt.01-05-2017 2/3 During the course of hearing of bail application, it has been submitted by the Opposite Party No.2 that the petitioner has performed second marriage with Rukhsana Khatoon daughter of Sk. Abdullah on 12.03.2017 without consent of the complainant-Opposite Party No.2. It is further submitted that he is not maintaining her as well as taking care of her health and other economic needs.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that compromise has taken place between the parties and he has deposited rupees fifty thousand with the complainant-Opposite Party No.2, as per order of the Court, but from the impugned order it appears that this petitioner did not appear in the Court although the complainant was present in Court. In view of such, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Prayer is rejected.

The petitioner may surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. At the time of surrender of the petitioner, if the parties file any petition for one time settlement, the Court below will consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8234 of 2017 (4) dt.01-05-2017 3/3 with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T