Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4301/2017dismissed

Saheb Raja Khan v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-04-04Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4301 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -156 Year- 2016 Thana -BASANTPUR District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Saheb Raja Khan, Son of Naushad Khan, Resident of Village-Shekhpura, P.S.-Basantpura, District-Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sabina Khatoon Daughter of Late Akbar Khan, Resident of VillageShekhpura, P.S.-Basantpura, District-Siwan. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Javed Aslam For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 04-04-2017 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Basantpur P.S. Case No. 156 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that factum of marriage itself is in dispute and, therefore, no case under Section 498A is made out as nothing has been mentioned as to when the marriage was solemnized between the parties and also nothing has been mentioned as to when the informant-opposite party no. 2 gave birth to her two children. Petitioner has been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. Heard learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no. 2

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4301 of 2017 (3) dt.04-04-2017 2/2 has submitted that she is still ready to live with the petitioner and as a matter of fact both petitioner and opposite party no. 2 went to delhi, where they got married and after eight months of marriage, petitioner came back to his house and when he was not coming back to delhi, opposite party no. 2 also went back to her house and, thereafter, the petitioner started demanding two lakhs as dowry.

Having heard both sides, in view the allegations, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner, the privilege of anticipatory bail, it is accordingly rejected.

Let petitioner surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the court below on the merit of the case, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U