Dismissed

Imamuddin v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC28 Jan 2016CR. MISC./40639/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail filed by a husband charged under Section 304B and 201/34 IPC for dowry death. The court held that his role as the husband precluded bail and dismissed the petition while advising him to surrender for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail stood dismissed; the petitioner was directed to surrender and apply for regular bail within six weeks.

Imamuddin Vs The State Of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40639 of 2015

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -165 Year- 2013 Thana -MANJHI District- SARAN ====================================================== Imamuddin Son of Sri Hanif Miyan Resident of Village - Nandpur Natwar, Police Station - Manjhi, District - Saran at Chapra. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nirmala Kumari (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 28-01-2016 Heard Sri Chaudhary Shyam Nandan, learned counsel who was assisted by Sri Krishna Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Nirmala Kumari, learned A.P.P.

¶3

The petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased apprehends his arrest in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 165 of 2013 registered for the offence under Section 304B, 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that save and except the petitioner all other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail. He further submits that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was far away at Mumbai and as such there was no question of involvement of the petitioner in the present case.

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40639 of 2015 (3) dt.28-01-2016

¶6

2/2

¶7

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer of bail and he submits that in the F.I.R. itself it has been alleged that the informant received information regarding death then he arrived at the place of the accused persons and saw that house was locked. Meaning thereby that even after death no information was given.

¶8

Keeping in view the fact that petitioner was husband as well as accused under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner.

¶9

The petition stands dismissed.

¶10

However, it is made clear that if petitioner surrenders before the court below and make a prayer for regular bail within a period of six weeks from today the learned court below may examine the same on its own merit and decide the same preferably on the same date.

¶11

(Rakesh Kumar, J)

¶12

Praful/-

¶13

U T

Imamuddin v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imamuddin v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vakil Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Tanti Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Syed Ibrahim Hussain Rizvi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Zahir and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Royeb @ Royeb @ Md. Sohaib and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Sk. Aslam @ Md. Aslam Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.