Md. Imran v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30462 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -348 Year- 2013 Thana -MAJHAULIA District- WEST CHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Md. Imran, Son of Md. Mainnuddin, resident of Village - Raghunathpur, Police Station - Manjhwalia, District - West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner, being the husband of the deceased lady, is apprehending his arrest in connection with Majhaulia P.S. Case No.348 of 2013 for allegedly having committed the offence under Sections 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.

Earlier, case diary in the present case was called for, which has since been received.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that save and except the allegation that the petitioner is the husband and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30462 of 2015 (4) dt.16-10-2015 2/2 that there was some differences with the deceased for going to Delhi, where the petitioner was working as Tailor, there was no dispute whatsoever between the parties.

However, learned counsel for the informant submits that earlier there was a dispute with regard to dowry for which a Panchayati was held and certain amount was also paid by the informant's side so that the family of the petitioner could be appeased.

Learned counsel for the State submits that it has come in the case diary that there had been some dispute between the husband and wife. Admittedly, the position is that after the said dispute, the girl disappeared under mysterious circumstances and has not been found till date. Considering the aforementioned submissions and the entire gamut of circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected. (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T