Aslam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64113 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2017 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE DistrictKishanganj ====================================================== Aslam Son of Aainudin Resident of Village - Ibrahimpur, P.S.- GuwalPokhar, District - Uttar Dinajpur, (West Bengal), At Present resident of Village - Dalua Basti, P.S.- Paharkatta, District - Kishanganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Saifun Nisha Wife of Aslam Daughter, Ainuddin, Resident of Village - Ibrahimpur, P.S.- Guwal Pokhar, District - Uttar Dinajupur, (West Bengal), At Present residing in Village - Naya Basti Maria., P.S.- Paharkatta, District - Kishanganj.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sarangdhar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 04-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and also heard learned counsel for the informant.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Complaint Case no. C-219/2017 in which cognizance has been taken under section 498A of the IPC.

Allegation against the petitioner is of perpetuating cruelty upon the complainant (wife). Matter was earlier referred to Mediation Center to resolve the dispute. Efforts have failed and therefore, matter has now to be considered for the purpose of petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64113 of 2019(3) dt.04-03-2020 2/2 Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in this case along with all family members. Counsel for the informant, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has subjected the complainant and has also solemnized second marriage and he has not even obliged to maintain the complainant and her son in terms of order dated 25.09.2018 passed in M.P. Case no. 59/2017.

Considering the rival submissions, this court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and as such his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) s.hassan/- U T