Saddam Hussain v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21918 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Siwan ====================================================== SADDAM HUSSAIN Son of Kasim Sah @ Kasim Sai Resident of VillagePanjwar, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Soniya Khatoon Daughter of Babujan Sai Resident of Village- Panpur Pateji Tola Bizuliya, P.S.- Assaw, District- Siwan.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Javed Aslam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Asha Devi For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prabhakar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Allegation against this petitioner is of commission of torture and harassment for dowry.

4. Petitioner is husband of the informant.

5. Petitioner denies the allegation. It is submitted that informant got married with this petitioner against her will and she did not want to live with this petitioner. Allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus. Petitioner is a daily wage labourer and as per his financial condition he is unable to pay

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21918 of 2020(6) dt.27-07-2023 2/2 any maintenance to his wife.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against this petitioner that he tortured his wife for dowry. Petitioner is also not depositing Rs. 10,000/- in the account of informant as per direction give by this court vide order dated 05/04/2022.

6. Considering the nature of accusation, conduct of the petitioner, gravity of the offence and the fact that petitioner is not ready to pay any maintenance to his wife, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre arrest bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) BKS/- U T