Md. Hussain v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1579 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -606 Year- 2014 Thana -HILSA District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Md. Hussain son of Md. Asgar Resident of Village - Parwalpur, Police Station - Hilsa, District - Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Priya Saran Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 307, 498 (A) and 34 of the I.P.C and section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Allegedly, the petitioner being husband of the informant used to torture and assault her due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry by way of Rs. 50,000/- and one colour T.V, out of the wedlock there is a daughter also but the petitioner and others tried to kill her by burning. The informant is pregnant also. Submission is of false implication and that without any fault the petitioner is suffering in custody since 09.11.2016, no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1579 of 2017 (2) dt.19-01-2017 2/2 injury has been caused to the informant and the entire family members have been implicated in this false case, the petitioner never demanded any dowry nor ever assaulted the informant. The learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioner is the husband.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering custody of the petitioner, now he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M. Hilsa, Nalanda in Hilsa P.S. Case No. 606 of 2014, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T