Imran Khan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60004 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2020 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Imran Khan Son Of Meraj Alam Resident Of Mohalla - Masjid Gali Purani Bazar In Front Of Masjid Masaurahi, P.S. - Masaurahi, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Tamanna Khatoon Wife Of Imran Khan, Daughter Of Md. Sabir Resident Of Mohalla - Dunkaimli Masjid Gali, Shearshah Road Patna, P.S. - Alamganj, District - Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishnakant Upadhyay For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 323, 341, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code & Sections 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Patna City, Patna.

3. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the case was referred for mediation but then the mediation failed.

4. Learned for the O.P. No.2 submits that the O.P. No.2 since 2020 has been living separately from the petitioner and in these four years, the petitioner never paid any amount of maintenance which amply demonstrates the conduct of the petitioner and the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60004 of 2023(4) dt.08-04-2024 2/2 petitioner enjoyed his life singally in these four years, while the O.P No.2 was completely dependent on her parents. It is also submitted that in the mediation proceedings, an offer was given to the petitioner for one time settlement but then petitioner refused the offer on the ground that he is not in a position to pay one time maintenance. It is next submitted that petitioner has house and property at Masaurhi but when it comes to maintenance or one time settlement he becomes a poor person.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a position to either maintain the O.P. No.2 or settle the dispute by way of one time settlement.

6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T