Shageer Ahmad @ Sagheer Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.74825 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna ====================================================== SHAGEER AHMAD @ SAGHEER AHMAD Son of Aslam Ahmad, Resident of Mohalla-Sabjibagh, Cristal Plaza, Opposite Birla Mandir, PSPirbahore, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

M/s Arshad Alam &.Anjum Perveen For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman for the informant : Mr. S. N. P. Sinha, Sr. advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2019 Heard Mr. Arshad Alam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP and Mr. S.N.P. Sinha, the learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mahila P.S. case No. 72 of 2018 registered under Section 376, 313 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The informant alleged that she had physical relation with the petitioner from 2008. The petitioner always assured her to marry and on such established physical relation with her. The petitioner took her to Manali along with his family members and had physical relation. The family members of petitioner and informant were ready for marriage. The petitioner also aborted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.74825 of 2018(3) dt.09-01-2019 2/3 her twice but petitioner refused to marry with informant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the contents of the FIR no offence under Section 376 of the IPC is made out. The informant was living in live-in relation with petitioner and if the petitioner refused to marry with informant no case under Section 376 of the IPC is made out. At best it is a case of breach of promise. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the informant, vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that petitioner physically exploited an innocent lady and he does not deserve anticipatory bail. It appears that informant herself in her fard bayan disclosed that she was having physical relation with petitioner from the year 2008.

She appears to be living in live-in relation with the petitioner and in the year 2018 the petitioner is said to have refused to marry with informant. On such, the informant lodged this case. The informant is a consenting party and major.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.74825 of 2018(3) dt.09-01-2019 3/3 enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Smt. Priya Shekhar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 72 of 2018, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T