Chand Mohammad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27323 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2017 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj ====================================================== CHAND MOHAMMAD Son of Rajab Mian Resident of Village- Kolerahi, P.S.- Bhore, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
Subak Tora W/o Chand Mohamad, D/o Abdul Majid Resident of VillageRatan Saray, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sushil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Dharamveer Mr.Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Barauli P.S. Case No.134 of 2017 registered under Sections 498A, 328, 406, 313 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity.
Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail by contending
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27323 of 2020(16) dt.07-04-2022 2/2 that the petitioner was earlier directed by the Family Court to pay altogether Rs.4,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and her female child but the petitioner did not comply the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted provisional bail by the court below itself on the basis of compromise but due to non-fulfillment of terms of compromise, the bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled and N.B.W. has been issued against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.
Having considered the facts aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. Harish/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T