Murshid Islam Nadvi @ Md Murshid Alam @ Murshid Ul Nadvi @ Murshidul Islam Nadvi v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67454 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2020 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Murshid Islam Nadvi @ Md Murshid Alam @ Murshid Ul Nadvi @ Murshidul Islam Nadvi Son Of Md. Islan Nadvi @ Mahammad Islam Nadvi,Mustak Ahamad Resident of 311 (A) Anup Nagar, P.S. Indar, Distrcit Indor (M.P.) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar Nikhat Nisar, Daughter of Md. Nisar Ahmad, Resident of Mohalla- Aliganj Road.12, Katari Hill, Road, P.S. Chandauti, District- Gaya. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, Adv Md. Tauqueer Azhar, Adv Mr. Neearj Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-04-2024 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chaudauti P.S. Case No. 210 of 2020 dated 7-11-2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the OP no. 2 submits that the case was referred for mediation, but then the mediation failed. It is also submitted that police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet and cognizance came to be taken.

4.

It is further submitted that the OP no. 2 was even ready for one-time settlement on Rs. 15 lakhs, but the same was denied by the petitioner and the petitioner gave a counter offer of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67454 of 2023(5) dt.20-04-2024 2/2 Rs. 6 lakhs, to which the OP no. 2 did not agree, as she was only requesting the petitioner to return the amount which was spent in the marriage. It is next submitted that for the last more than three and a half years, the OP no. 2 is living at her parental home and the petitioner has not paid a single penny towards her maintenance as such, one can well imagine the plight of the OP no. 2 as she is completely dependent on her parents and brother. 5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner teaches in a Madarsa and gets a salary of Rs. 2,500/- and thus is not in a position to pay any maintenance amount, but then is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel for the OP no. 2 that the OP no. 2 for the last more than three and a half years is staying at her parental home with no financial support of the petitioner.

6.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP no. 2, the court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T