Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48386/2016dismissed

Kamran Mufeed @ Md. Kamran Mufeed v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-11-28Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48386 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -37 Year- 2014 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Kamran Mufeed @ Md. Kamran Mufeed S/o Md. Mufeed Uddin, resident of A-32 Batla House, P.S. Jamiya Nagar, District ( South East) Delhi 110025 .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Mrs. Najmus Sehar W/o Kamaran Mufeed Resident of A-32 Batla House, P.S. Jamiya Nagar, Delhi -110025, D/o Jafar Raza Khan at Present R/o Akbarpur, P.S. + District-Rohtas Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-11-2016 Heard Mr. Syed Md. Sabbir Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, who is husband of Complainant/Opp.Party no.2, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.37/2014 registered for the offence under Sections 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been made accused in the present case. The petitioner is still ready to live with the complainant, whereas in paragraph-12 of the present petition, it

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48386 of 2016 (2) dt.28-11-2016 2/2 has been stated that the petitioner has already given divorce to the complainant.

In this case, the order of cognizance was passed long back in the month of April, 2014 and after cognizance, the court had issued summons, whereas the petitioner approached the Court of Session in the year 2016 for grant of anticipatory bail. In view of allegation against the petitioner, who is husband of the complainant as well as the fact that the order of cognizance was passed long back in the year 2014, there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T