Sajid Imam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52376 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2018 Thana- SATHI District- West Champaran ====================================================== SAJID IMAM Son of Nurul Imam Resident of Mohalla - Joda Inar (Kutti), Kalibagh, Bettiah, P.S.- Bettiah Town, Distt - West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Sabin Ara Wife of Sajid Imam D/o Majharul Haque Resident of Village - Barawa Kala, P.S.- Sathi, Distt - West Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the informant :

Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate Mr. Arif Daula Siddique, Advocate Mr. Mahtab Alam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 27-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the informant and the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sathi P.S. Case No. 81 of 2018, instituted for the offence under Section(s) 341, 323, 315, 498(A)/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Petitioner is husband of the informant.

Petitioner was earlier granted provisional anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.2.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. 61182 of 2018. The bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled by the court below vide A.B.P. No. 1191 of 2018 on 7.6.2019 because the matter could not be reconciled between the parties.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52376 of 2019(2) dt.27-08-2019 2/2 always ready to keep his wife (informant) with full honour and dignity. He further submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner for the offence under Section 315 of the Indian Penal Code.

Counsel for the informant has appeared and submitted that petitioner has performed another marriage. Therefore, it is not possible for the informant to live with him.

From the impugned order it appears that petitioner and informant were present at the time of passing impugned order, but matter could not be reconciled between them.

Petitioner is in custody since 7.6.2019 having clean antecedent.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is allowed. Let the petitioner above named, 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, in connection with Sathi P.S. Case No. 81 of 2018, subject to the condition that both the bailors will be close relatives of the petitioner.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T