Md Mobin @ Mangal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64557 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2018 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai ====================================================== Md Mobin @ Mangal Son of Mohuuddin Resident of Village - Hairpur, P.S.- Singhiyaghat, Distt.- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Kursida Khatoon W/o Md. Mobin , D/o Md. Taiyab Resident of Village - Hairpur, P.S.- Singhiyaghat, Distt.- Samastipur, At present D/o Md. Taiyab, Resident of Village - Badijana, P.S.- Khodawandpur, Distt.- Begusarai. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Randhir Kumar No.1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-06-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with complaint Case No. 212(c) of 2018, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 498A, 406, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The main submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the marriage of the petitioner with complainant took place 17 years ago and his wife falsely prepared the alleged prosecution story after having spent a long period of hermarital life with this petitioner which is completely unbelievable and there are two children having born from their wedlock and the petitioner is still ready to keep his wife in his company and before

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64557 of 2021(2) dt.16-06-2022 2/2 the Court below the conciliation was made in which the complainant completely refused to live in his company on the ground of second marriage of this petitioner which is completely false. Learned APP has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

Having Considered the above submissions and mainly the fact that the marriage of the complainant with this petitioner took place 17 years ago and as per the above submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner there is some chance of re union of both spouses and putting the petitioner behind the bar will frustrate the said possibility of reunion and also considering petitioner clean antecedent mentioned at paragraph 3 of the petition in my view a lenient approach can be taken in respect of petitioner's prayer, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest/surrender within four weeks from today in the Court below, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Court in connection with complaint Case No. 212(C) of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Shailendra Singh, J) siddharthkr/- U T