Md. Seraj @ Md. Seraj Shekh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83688 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1534 Year-2018 Thana- SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== MD. SERAJ @ MD. SERAJ SHEKH Son of Late Tohid Shekh @ Late Md. Tohir Resident of Village-Bela, P.S.-Sonbarsa, District-Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Momina Khatoon Wife of Md. Seraj @ Md. Seraj Shekh Daughter of Md. Bazir at present resident of village-Manik Chowk, West Ward No.2, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, District-Sitamarhi.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shankar Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Amarendra Prasad For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 06-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the O.P. no.2 and learned APP for the State. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.C-1/1534/18, registered for the offence punishable under sections 323, 341, 379, 307 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per allegation in the Complaint, the petitioner was married to the opposite party no.2 in the year 2014. At the time of marriage, 'Den Mehar' of Rs. 50,000/- besides furniture,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83688 of 2019(6) dt.06-03-2020 2/3 clothes etc. worth Rs. 1 lac as also ornaments were given. Thereafter, the Complainant went to her in-laws' house and started to live there and out of the wedlock, a son was born. It is stated that after sometime, the accused persons started to demand Rs. 2 lacs by way of assistance for starting a business and threatened that if the said demand was not fulfilled they would not permit her to stay there. It is thereafter stated that the accused persons assaulted her, the torture continued and she was forced out of the house with the warning that she would return back only after their demand of Rs. 2 lacs was fulfilled.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that besides the allegations being general and omnibus in nature, the allegations levelled against the petitioner and members of his family are false. It is further submitted that the petitioner is always ready to keep his wife and son with love and respect. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that by order dated 18.12.2019, while issuing notice in the case, the petitioner was directed to be enlarged on provisional bail. On 19.02.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83688 of 2019(6) dt.06-03-2020 3/3 with her.

In view of the above, it was directed that both the petitioner as well as the Complainant shall appear in this Court on 25.02.2020. The opposite party no.2 appeared on 26.02.2020 (the case not having been listed on 25.02.2020) but the petitioner did not appear. Once again the case was fixed for 05.03.2020 directing both the parties to appear on that date. The petitioner once again chose not to appear while the O.P. no.2 was present.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner as levelled in the complaint, the relationship between the parties together with the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and as such his application for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks. (Partha Sarthy, J.) amit/- U T