Partly allowed

Mustak Ansari v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC15 Jul 2019CR. MISC./2950/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a complaint case under Section 498A IPC alleging assault over a gold chain demand. Mediation failed. The court ordered petitioner to appear with a Rs.20,000 bank draft to confirm provisional bail, contingent on the balance deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to appear on 31.7.2019 with Rs.20,000 draft; provisional bail extended three months conditional on further deposit balancing demand.

Mustak Ansari Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2950 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-599 Year-2017 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Mustak Ansari, son of Md. Rahman Ansari, Resident of Village- Duari, P.S.Karakat, District - Rohtas

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Bihar

¶8

Rahan Khatoon, D/O Md. Maruf Ansari, W/o- Mustak Ansari R/o- VillageChaugai, P.S.- Karkat, District - Rohtas

¶9

... ... Opposite Parties

¶10

======================================================

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶14

5 15-07-2019 Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 599 of 2017 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Allegation against the petitioner is of assaulting the complainant with respect to demand of gold chain.

¶16

On appearance of opposite party No.2 the matter was referred to the Patna High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre vide order dated 29.3.2019. However, Mediator’s report disclosed that in spite of best efforts mediation failed.

¶17

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was ready to pay Rs.40,000/- but the demand of opposite

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2950 of 2019(5) dt.15-07-2019 2/2

¶19

party No.2 was Rs.50,000/- and the articles which he have taken but petitioner refused to give the amount.

¶20

During course of argument it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready to give Rs.50,000/- if some reasonable time is granted to him.

¶21

Heard learned APP also.

¶22

In view of above facts and circumstances, let petitioner appear in the court below on 31.7.2019 along with a Bank Draft of Rs.20,000/- in favour of opposite party No.2, his provisional bail granted vide order dated 23.1.2019 shall be extended for a period of three months, during that period he has to deposit rest of the amount of Rs.30,000/- through a Bank Draft in favour of opposite party No.2, otherwise his provisional bail shall be cancelled. However, once the total amount is deposited, his provisional bail shall be confirmed.

¶23

Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

¶24

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)

¶25

spal/-

¶26

U T

Mustak Ansari v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustak Ansari v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

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

Md. Islam @ Quazi Md. Islam Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Manjesh Kumar Rai @ Manjesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Shree Ranjan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Anr.

Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Saddam Hussain Vs The State of Bihar and Anr.