Md. Raja v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41175 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-507 Year-2018 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE District- Nawada ====================================================== MD. RAJA, S/o Md. Jahangir Alam, R/o village - Ghugharitand Bypass, P.S. - Vishnupad, Distt. - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Tamanna Parween @ Reshma, D/o Md. Gama, R/o village - Farha, P.S. - Akbarpur, Distt. - Nawada ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 498(A), 406, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Petitioner is husband of opposite party no. 2 and there is allegation that on 17.10.2017 marriage was solemnized and on 27.10.2017 opposite party no. 2 was expelled from her matrimonial house for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. Further allegation is that husband has married with another lady. Reconciliation has already failed.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41175 of 2019(4) dt.19-12-2019 2/2 that opposite party no. 2 had lodged a case of rape against Md. Miraz and five others and her mother had also lodged idential complaint case against Md. Miraz and others, which are Annexure-2 and 3 to this application.

In the aforesaid background, it is evident that opposite party no. 2 is in the habit of lodging false case and extorting money from different persons.

Learned counsel for the informant submits that Nikahnama is a documentary evidence of marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2. For non-fulfillment of dowry demand, petitioner has already married with another lady. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, in connection with Complaint Case No. 507 of 2018 pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, only for the reason that opposite party no. 2 was raped by some other person in the past.

Hence, prayer for anticipatory bail is refused. (Birendra Kumar, J) Kundan/- U T