Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30171/2017rejected

Mohammad Nezam v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-13Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30171 of 2017 (10) dt.13-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30171 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -65 Year- 2016 Thana -SUGAULI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Mohammad Nezam .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohammed Abu Haidar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Yogendra Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 13-11-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sugauli Police Station Case No. 65 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner happens to be father-in-law of the complainant is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, according to the Panchanama, the petitioner has already executed a sale deed with respect to four katha of land and also paid Rs. 9,00000/- to the complainant. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30171 of 2017 (10) dt.13-11-2017 Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is name in the Complaint and there is allegation that on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, he has ousted the complainant from her matrimonial home. Moreover, the petitioner has not given even a single farthing as per the Panchanama to the complainant.

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

(Arvind Srivastava, J.) Brajesh/- U T