Md. Alam Ansari @ Alam Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72154 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2016 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== MD. ALAM ANSARI @ ALAM ANSARI Son of Mokin Ansari @ Mokim Ansari Resident of Village - Masihani, P.S.- Chhatarpur, District - Palamu (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.

Nurjahan Khatoon Daughter of Roj Mohammad Resident of Village - Devgana, P.S.- Navinagar, District - Aurangabad. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 15-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, when called upon to do so by the office. The petitioner is/are apprehending his/their arrest in connection with Navinagar P.S. Case No. 7 of 2016 for the offence registered under Sections 498(A), 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is a case of maltreatment, harassment and cruelty against the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of dowry.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72154 of 2019(5) dt.15-12-2021 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to compromise the case with the informant and his daughter. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

From perusal of the impugned order dated 22.08.2019, it appears that this case was instituted in the year 2016 and vide para 121, the petitioner was shown as absconder causing inordinate delay in disposal of the case. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has ample responsibility to keep his wife with full dignity and honour. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Jagdish/- U T