Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31818/2025bail rejected

Tazuddin v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-23Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31818 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2179 Year-2024 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia ====================================================== Tazuddin son of Md Gayas R/o vill - Sarbaili, Thana- Amour, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Gulshana D/o Late Nuruddin R/o vill - Sarbaili, P.S.- Amour, Distt.- Purnea ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Fazle Karim, Adv.

Mr. Faizan Ahmad, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 23-07-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and Learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable in connection with Complaint Case (C.A.) No.2179 of 2024 under Section 85 of the BNS, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution, the allegation made by the complainant against the petitioner that the petitioner is a husband and the Panchayati marriage took place and by virtue of said marriage, she got pregnant and she has pregnancy of about 8 months.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31818 of 2025(3) dt.23-07-2025 2/2 that the allegation made against the petitioner is absolutely false and neither panchayati nor marriage has been solemnized and petitioner is ready for DNA test.

5. Learned Counsel for the Informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the Solemn Affirmation (S.A.), the complainant has categorically disclosed that the wrong done with her.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

7. It transpires to this Court that the petitioner is denying the marriage whereas the complainant indicates that physical relation has developed with her after marriage before Panchayat.

8. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T