Patna High CourtCR. MISC./67705/2024bail granted

Asraf Alam v. The State Of Bihar

2025-04-16Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67705 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2021 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- West Champaran ====================================================== Asraf Alam S/o Sheikh kamarullah @ Sheikh Karmullaa R/o vill - Parsa Marzadwa, P.S. - Purushottampur, Distt. - West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Anguri Khatoon W/o Asraf Alam, D/o Sheikh Taiyyab R/o vill - Tumkadia, P.s. - Shikarpur, Distt. - West Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocte For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-04-2025 Heard Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anant Kumar-1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Despite of valid service of notice upon Opposite Party No. 2, no one appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 320-C of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. According to prosecution case, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 27.01.2016 with the complainant and after the marriage he started demanding Rs. 2

2/4 lakhs as dowry from the complainant's father and on nonfulfillment of dowry demand he along with other co-accused persons said to have assaulted the complainant and ousted her from her matrimonial home.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint petition bearing Complaint Case No. 830-C of 2020 and the same was sent to the Purushottampur P.S. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on the basis of aforesaid the Purushottampur P.S. Case No. 91 of 2020 was registered under Sections 323, 307 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation submitted the final form in favour of the petitioner vide Final Report No. 97 of 2020 but the complainant has filed the present protest-cum-complaint petition as mentioned aforesaid before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, who was pleased to took cognizance vide order dated 12.12.2023. He further submits that in fact, the O.P. NO. 2 had performed the marriage with one Md. Farooque and he has brought on the record the Marriage Certificte (Nikahnama) (Annexure-3/1).

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

3/4 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts that the petitioner has clean antecedent and on the protest the Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner and apart from that the O.P. No. 2 had performed the marriage with one Md. Farooque, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettian in connection with Complaint Case No. 320-C of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and with other following conditions:- i.

Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii.

4/4 for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.) Jyoti Kumari/- U T