Meh Uddin Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2024)

Meh Uddin Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer for regular bail refused at the present stage; liberty granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer after framing of charge; Trial Court directed to release the petitioner on bail on its own conditions upon framing of charge, so that he may not evade his appearance during trial.

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner (aged about 52, father-in-law of the informant, one of six named accused) in connection with Palasi P.S. Case No. 283 of 2023, lodged under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 324, 307, 354B, 379, 504/34 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

Court's answer

In the present facts and circumstances, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

Key takeaways

The Trial Court was directed to release the petitioner on bail imposing its own conditions, so that he may not evade his appearance during trial.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Meh Uddin (s/o Late Karkhuddin, Vill. Pipra Bijwar, Ward No. N7, P.S. Palasi, Dist. Araria), aged about 52 years and father-in-law of the informant, sought regular bail before the Patna High Court (Dr. Anshuman, J.) in Criminal Miscellaneous No.84409 of 2023 arising out of Palasi P.S. Case No. 283 of 2023, registered on 08.09.2023 under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 324, 307, 354B, 379, 504/34 of the I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Per the F.I.R., six named accused included the petitioner; the allegation of giving poison was general and omnibus against the entire family members, and the allegation of outrage of modesty lay against the brother-in-law and husband, not the father-in-law; counsel for the informant nonetheless urged a specific allegation that the petitioner assaulted the informant with an iron rod, supported by injury. The petitioner was in custody since 11.10.2023 with clean antecedents. No one appeared for the petitioner; learned A.P.P. for the State and counsel for the informant opposed the prayer. Holding: in the present facts and circumstances the Court was not inclined to grant bail, but granted liberty to renew the prayer after framing of charge, and directed the Trial Court to release the petitioner on bail imposing its own conditions so that he may not evade his appearance during trial. Decided 10-01-2024.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84409 of 2023

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2023 Thana- PALASI District- Araria

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

Meh Uddin S/O LATE KARKHUDDIN R/O VILL-PIPRA BIJWAR WARD NO N7, P/S PALASI , DIST- ARARIA.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Rana, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

2 10-01-2024

No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State is present.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

Palasi P.S. Case No. 283 of 2023 registered on 08.09.2023 lodged under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 324, 307, 354B, 379, 504/34 of the I.P.C. and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per the prosecution case, F.I.R. has been lodged against six named accused persons including the petitioner. It transpires from the F.I.R. that the petitioner is aged about 52 years and is father-in-law. The statement of settlement is there, but general and omnibus allegation of giving poison is made on the entire family members and also to assault the informant by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84409 of 2023(2) dt.10-01-2024 2/2

rod on her head.

The allegation of outrage of modesty is against the bother-in-law and husband and not on father-in-law and it is clear from records that petitioner is in custody since 11.10.2023 having clean antecedent.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer

for bail.

Counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that entire family members has committed the said crime and involvement of petitioner is also there. Counsel for the informant further submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he has assaulted the informant by iron rod, supported by injury.

In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge and Trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail imposing its own conditions, so that he may not evade his appearance during trial.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

Sunnykr/-

U