Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6990/2017rejected

Md. Shakir v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-07-19Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6990 of 2017 (4) dt.19-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6990 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -183 Year- 2014 Thana -MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE DistrictMADHEPURA ======================================================

1. Md. Shakir, Son of Md. Shamsul, Resident of Village-Puraini, Police Station-Sri Nagar, District-Madhepura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-07-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Complaint Case No. 183 of 2014, disclosing offences under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner happens to be the husband of the complainant is still ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity but she herself does not want to reside with the petitioner. The petitioner has never demanded any dowry nor he has assaulted the complainant ever. Hence, the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6990 of 2017 (4) dt.19-07-2017 petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is allegation of demand of dowry and non fulfillment of the same, the complainant was assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial house by the petitioner. The witnesses have also supported the prosecution version.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T