Abdul Rahman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38378 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1051 Year-2016 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

ABDUL RAHMAN S/o Halim Miyan Resident of Village- Jarar, P.S.- Laukariya, Distt- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Jahan Ara At present resident of Village- Dargah, Police Station- Bettiah Town, Distt- West Chamapran.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Milind Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Gupta Md. Fahimuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehend arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1051 C of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under section 323, 504, 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint petition and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner never demanded any dowry. Petitioneer is always ready to keep his wife.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38378 of 2020(12) dt.18-04-2022 2/2 Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner being the husband of the victim had the responsibility of keeping and maintaining her with full honour and dignity, in which he failed. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T