Md. Sajjad Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.168 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2023 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Md. Sajjad Ansari S/O Samshul Ansari Village- Rasalpur, Barhulia, Ps. Simri, Dist. Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Juhi Praveen W/O Md. Sajjad Ansari, D/O Abdul Jabbar Village- Barhulia, Ps. Simri,Dist. Darbhanga.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Baidyanath Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pushpa Sinha.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-02-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 171/2023 or T.R. No. 1199/2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 120B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act and section 4 of the Muslim Woman Marriage Protection Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.168 of 2024(2) dt.01-02-2024 2/3 co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 1 lac and a motorcycle as dowry.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner who is husband of the complainant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of "Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182." Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 498A of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgments in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 and Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.168 of 2024(2) dt.01-02-2024 3/3 arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Darbhanga in connection with Complaint Case No. 171/2023 or T.R. No. 1199/2023 subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with further condition:- (i). The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled.

8. If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the Court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of reconcilation or one time settlement.

9. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T