Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54451/2013rejected

Md. Asraf Khan @ Rikki v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-10-26Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54451 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -262 Year- 2013 Thana -MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUNGER ====================================================== Md. Asraf Khan @ Rikki S/O Md. Asgar Khan Resident of Mohalla- Purab Sarai, Kamala Road, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Munger .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sabra Praveen W/O Md. Asraf, D/O Md. Aashique Resident of MohallaPurab Sarai, Kamala Road, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Munger .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Musowir, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Dilip Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 26-10-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 262C of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.02.2014 on the undertaking that the petitioner was ready to settle the dispute with opposite party no. 2 and on such, notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been paying Rs. 750/- per month to his wife since order dated 07.02.2014, but the petitioner is unable to keep his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54451 of 2013 (6) dt.26-10-2016 2/2 wife and he is ready to settle the dispute once for all. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that opposite party no. 2 filed a petition for her maintenance and maintenance of her child. The court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3500/- per month for maintenance of the complainant and her child vide order dated 31.01.2014 in Maintenance Case No. 398 of 2013, but this fact was also concealed from this Court and the petitioner has not paid even a single farthing in pursuance of the order passed in Maintenance Case No. 398 of 2013. The petitioner is reluctant to keep his wife. Considering the fact aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T