Samsad Mansoori @ Samsad v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.53674 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2015 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== Samsad Mansoori @ Samsad S/o- Jabir Mansoori, resident of VillageIslampur Tola Dhaka, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sahnaj Begam, W/o- Samsad Mansoori, D/o Abdul Kadir Mansoori, resident of Village- Islampur Tola, Dhaka, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran, at present resident of Village- Harbulwa, P.S.- Chiraiya, District- East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ramakant Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. SRI UDAY CHAND PRASAD ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 27-11-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. C-102/2015, Tr. No. 7233 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 307, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 , 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the husband of the informant and is still ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity, but it is his wife who does not want to live with him.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53674 of 2016(9) dt.27-11-2017 2/2 submits that petitioner being the husband is very much responsible to maintain and keep his wife with full honour and dignity in which he failed. It is further submitted that the matter was sent to mediation center, but due to the act of this petitioner the same also failed.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T