Muzaffar Hussain v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74967 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-761 Year-2021 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia ====================================================== MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN S/o Late Abdul Qadir R/o Village- Purab Tola, Sirsi, P.S.- Rauta, Distt- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Shahena Khatoon W/o Muzaffar Hussain, D/o Haji Kalimuddin R/o villagePurab Tola, Sirsi, P.S.- Rauta, Distt- Purnea. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Md. Helal Ahmad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP For the Complainant :

Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-07-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is the husband of the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that though the present criminal case has been instituted by the complainant against him, but then complainant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74967 of 2022(4) dt.20-07-2023 2/2 is staying in his house and he has been ousted from home and presently he is staying with his mother. It is next submitted that petitioner does not have any source of income, as such he is not in a position to maintain the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant rebuts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the marriage is more than 22 years old and it took the complainant 22 years to institute the case, as she was being tortured right from the beginning, but since she has children to feed, as such she was not in a position to confront the petitioner, but when the children grew up and the complainant could not take the torture of the petitioner, as such she was compelled to file the present complaint case against him.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T