Mohammad Imran Ali @ Md. Imran v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.719 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -474 Year- 2014 Thana -GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGOPALGANJ ====================================================== Mohammad Imran Ali @ Md. Imran, S/O Gulban Mian, R/O Village - Musahari Bazar, P.S. - Bijaipur, District - Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Abida Khatoon, W/o Mohammad Imran Ali @ Md. Imran, R/O VillageMusahari Bazar, P.S. - Bijaipur, District - Gopalganj, At Present - R/o Rakba, P.S.- Bhorey , District- Gopalganj.

.... .... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. For the State : Mr. For the Complainant-O.P. No.2 : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ---------- 21-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.474 of 2014/Tr. No.2413 of 2016 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj. The accusation is of torturing the complainant-opposite party no.2 by her husband (petitioner) and other in-laws for non

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.719 of 2017 (3) dt.21-03-2017 2/2 fulfillment of the dowry demand and also ousting the complainantopposite party no.2 from her matrimonial house. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while the allegation against the petitioner and others of torturing the complainant-opposite party no.2 lastly was made on 18.04.2011 but the complaint petition has been filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 on 19.02.2014. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainantopposite party no.2 submits that, in fact, after ousting the complainant-opposite party no.2 from her matrimonial house by this petitioner and others, the petitioner has performed his remarriage.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T