Md. Sohail Anwar @ Sohail Aalam v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73788 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-893 Year-2016 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== Md. Sohail Anwar @ Sohail Aalam S/o Md. Haider, Resident of Village- Bari Jana, P.S.- Chourahi, District- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State Of Bihar 2.

Saba Kousar, W/o Md. Sohail Anwar, D/o Abdul Mannan, resident of Village- Dinmanpur Kharaj, P.S. Khanpur, Post Dinmanpur Kharaj, DistrictSamastipur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Mithilesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 893 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely because he is husband of the complainant. The complainant used to regularly visit her Naihar to which the petitioner objected and requested her to lead her conjugal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73788 of 2018(5) dt.19-06-2019 2/2 life at Sasural, the complainant quarreled with him and lodged the present false complaint.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is allegation of committing torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Moreover, petitioner being the husband had the responsibility to maintain the complainant with all dignity and honour in which he has failed, and as such, he does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T