Dildar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52129 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Araria ====================================================== DILDAR S/o- Wasiqur Rahman Resident of Village- Pathraha,Ward No. 14, P.S.- Narpatganj (Ghurna), District- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Naushad Uzzoha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 07-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Araria (Mahila) P.S. Case no. 177 of 2019 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 354A, 354D/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. As per allegation in the FIR, while the informant was alone in her house, petitioner entered into her house and started to molest the informant on the pretext of marriage. On his denial, a Panchayati was also held where he has accepted his guilt and his marriage was fixed with the victim to which he denied due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand by his parents. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52129 of 2021(2) dt.07-04-2022 2/2 has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the parents of the informant wants to marry their daughter with the petitioner to which parents of he petitioner refused and only with a view to put a pressure upon the petitioner's family, with a fabricated story, the present case has been lodged.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that there is direct allegation of molesting against the petitioner. It is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that petitioner has tried to outrage the modesty of the informant, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U