Firoz Ansari @ Ekramul Hasan @ Sri Ekramul Hasan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54915 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2018 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran ====================================================== FIROZ ANSARI @ EKRAMUL HASAN @ SRI EKRAMUL HASAN Son of Wasim Ansari @ Kasim Ansari Resident of Village - Khoji Tola, P.S.- Ekma, Dist.- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Roy For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-09-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Baniyapur P.S. Case No.161 of 2018 registered under Sections 323, 307, 498A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The informant filed Complaint Case No.472 of 2017 on the basis of which present F.I.R. was registered. The informant alleged that her marriage was solemnised with the petitioner on 14.06.2014 but thereafter the petitioner subjected her to all sorts of physical and mental torture due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to keep his wife on any undertaking but from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54915 of 2019(2) dt.02-09-2019 2/2 perusal of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that petitioner was granted provisional anticipatory bail on 25.05.2019 but petitioner never turned up in Court to take his wife. The petitioner also did not visit the house of his wife to take her to his own house. On query, the petitioner admitted this fact before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he did not take his wife to his own house.

It appears that petitioner held the false assurance and got provisional anticipatory bail but the petitioner is not willing to keep his wife and there is allegation that it was petitioner who subjected his wife to all sorts of torture.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U T