Shaukat Ali v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36848 of 2020 Arising Out of Case No.-581 Year-2017 GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== SHAUKAT ALI Son of Late Yasin Mian Resident of Village- Kotwa, P.S.- Barauli, Distt- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Aashma Khatoon W/o Shaukat Ali, D/o Wakil Mian at present R/o villageSupauli Kund, P.S.- Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2021 Heard both sides.

The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 581/2017 registered under Section 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the complaint petition it would appear that marriage was solemnized on 29.01.2014. The complainant alleged that within three months she was subjected to all sorts of torture due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry and on 16.03.2014 she was left at Barhima and from where she came to her parents house. It is further submitted that last occurrence is said to have taken place on 16.03.2014 but the complainant lodged the complaint petition on 16.03.2017. The complainant kept mum for three years and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36848 of 2020(2) dt.25-06-2021 2/2 she did not complain about the ill treatment given to her. The true facts are that the petitioner is labourer and wife of the petitioner was not willing to live with petitioner and that is why she left the house on 16.03.2014 itself and filed the complaint petition only after three years from the date of living the house of the petitioner. The petitioner is ready for settlement of the dispute.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I find that petitioner deserves anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction the learned Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateXIV, Gopalganj in connection with Complaint case No. 581/2017, subject to conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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