Patna High CourtCR. MISC./12241/2017rejected

Shakeel Khan @ Md. Shakeel Khan v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-04Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12241 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1 Year- 2016 Thana -PUPRI District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Shakeel Khan @ Md. Shakeel Khan Son of Late Kamat Khan resident of Village - Gangati, Police Station - Pupri, District - Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Shaheen Fatma W/O Md. Shakeel khan resident of Village- Gangati, P.S. Pupri, District- Sitamarhi, at present C/O Ajijar Rahman, VillageKumma, P.S. Sursand, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranvijay Singh For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Madan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 04-10-2017 Perused the Mediator's report.

Inspite of best efforts the mediation has failed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the Complainant/Informant.

Allegedly, the complainant/informant was married to the petitioner on 12.07.2012 and the father of the complainant/informant has given one Katha land at Mehalsaul, Sitamarhi to the petitioner but after birth of a son the petitioner started demanding dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- and due to non fulfillment started torturing her and ultimately ousted her from the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12241 of 2017 (5) dt.04-10-2017 2/2 in-laws house after snatching all her articles. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is ready to keep the complainant as his wife and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration as all the allegations are false and concocted.

The learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.P.P. oppose prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is the husband and he has refused to keep the informant as his wife and then the mediation has failed. There is specific allegation against the petitioner for demanding Rs. 10,00,000/- and as such the petitioner does not deserve prearrest bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 01 of 2016 pending in the court of S.D.J.M. Sitamarhi.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T