Md. Aslam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86462 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-799 Year-2017 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== MD. ASLAM Son of Md. Samsl Resident of Village- Sanouhla, P.S.- Sanouhala, District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Biwi Zubaida Khatun W/o Md. Aslam, D/o Md. Amin Resident of VillageAssi, P.S.- Dhourraiya, District- Banka. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anupa Nand Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Anita Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 07-02-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 799 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 498A, 120B, 506, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation of demand of dowry and torture is absolutely false and baseless. The present complaint has been filed after 7 years of the marriage. Petitioner is still

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86462 of 2019(8) dt.07-02-2022 2/2 ready to keep the complainant with full honour and dignity. Petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is the husband and there is specific allegation of torture and assault against him. Moreover, the petitioner being the husband had the responsibility of keeping his wife with full honour and dignity in which he failed. The petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of bail is, accordingly, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T