Md. Monabir @ Md. Monavir v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54886 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1344 Year-2020 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai ====================================================== MD. MONABIR @ MD. MONAVIR S/o Md. Aslam R/o village- Karichak, Ward No. 13, P.S.- Birpur, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sonam Khatoon W/o Md. Monabir @ Md. Monavir, D/o Late Badrujama R/o village- Karichak, Ward No. 13, P.S.- Birpur, District- Begusarai ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, APP For the Complainant :
Md. Rashid Alam, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 498(A), 307, 406 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In compliance of the order dated 19.06.2023, the petitioner and the complainant are present physically in the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being the husband has been falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that the matter was referred to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54886 of 2022(5) dt.22-06-2023 2/2 the Mediation and Conciliation Centre but the mediation failed. Learned counsel next submits that the petitioner was married with the complainant in the year 2019 and it has been alleged that after marriage dowry was being demanded and on nonfulfillment of the same, the complainant was ousted. It is further submitted that the complainant has falsely alleged that dowry was being demanded.
Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant is being tortured both mentally and physically and at times she has been badly assaulted, it is further submitted that it appears that the situation cannot be reconciled nor the petitioner is willing to maintain the complainant. In view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is thus rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U T