The High Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. Finding the case unfit for bail, the court held that the allegations of torture and dowry demands justified the refusal of the privilege.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73788 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-893 Year-2016 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur
======================================================
Md. Sohail Anwar @ Sohail Aalam S/o Md. Haider, Resident of Village- Bari Jana, P.S.- Chourahi, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sri Mithilesh Kumar Khare ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER
5 19-06-2019
Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the
State.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 893 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A/34 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 merely because he is husband of the complainant. The complainant used to regularly visit her Naihar to which the petitioner objected and requested her to lead her conjugal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73788 of 2018(5) dt.19-06-2019 2/2
life at Sasural, the complainant quarreled with him and lodged the present false complaint.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and
the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is allegation of committing torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Moreover, petitioner being the husband had the responsibility to maintain the complainant with all dignity and honour in which he has failed, and as such, he does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.
mcv/-
U T
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail in a false implication of torture due to the demand for dowry.
Whether the petitioner deserved the privilege of anticipatory bail considering the allegations of torture.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Md. Sohail Anwar @ Sohail Aalam
State Of Bihar
Saba Kousar
Arvind Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
