Ahmad Hussain v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52461 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-810 Year-2007 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District- Katihar ====================================================== Ahmad Hussain, aged about 45 years, Gender-Male, Son Of Late Ibrahim, R/O Village- Maltipur, P.S.- Amdabad, Dist- Katihar. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Bibi Dilruba Khatoon, Daughter of Abdul Hannan, R/O Village- Chandpur, P.S.- Harischandrapur, Dist- Malda, P/A- Bibi Dilruba Khatoon, Wife of Master Ikramul Haque, R/O Village- Uttar Chandipur, P.O- Uttar Chandipur, P.S.- Bhuthani, Dist- Malda, West Bengal.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate For the State :

Mrs. Meena Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with C.A. Case No. 810 of 2007 dated 12.04.2007 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and other co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfilment of demand of Rs. 25,000/- as dowry. It is further alleged that the petitioner solemnized another marriage with Bibi Tajkera Khatoon and

2/4 ousted her from the matrimonial house.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and he has no concern with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and now they are living separately and the panches decided that the opposite party no. 2 is free to get marry anywhere because she took Khula Talaq and the petitioner had given Dain Mahr to her, as such, the petitioner being illiterate person, on the advise of the panches of the opposite party no.

2, she was not produced before the learned court below and a compromise petition has also been filed and closed the case because she herself has said that she would not pursue the case in the learned court below as such the petitioner left pairvi and suddenly, the petitioner was arrested by police on 04.04.2024. It is further submitted that now the opposite party no. 2 is living with her newly married husband, as such, she has not made pairvi of this case after the cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of "Md.

3/4 Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182" and in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 and Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No (s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is triable by the Magistrate. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. The petitioner is in custody in this case since 04.04.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Katihar in connection with C. A. Case No. 810 of 2007.

(I) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned court below on each and every date, failing which

4/4 on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled.

7. If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of reconciliation or one time settlement.

8. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U.K./- U T