SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Alijan @ Alijar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 20 December, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 58715 of 2018
Arising Out of Complaint Case No.-1273 C Year-2017 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE
District- Araria

Alijan @ Alijar S/o- Late Mahboob, resident of Village- Chaudharia, Tirhut
Bitta Chatar, P.S. Araria, District- Araria.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Bibi Afroza, W/o- Alijan @ Alijar, D/o Abdur Rahman, resident of Village-
Tilsulia, Basantpur, Ward No. 3, P.S. Araria, District- Araria.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-12-2018

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Complaint Case

No. 1273C of 2017 instituted under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner and other family

members is that he has mentally and physically tortured his wife,

the Complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) and further that he had

abducted and married the younger sister of the Opposite Party No.

2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

allegations are false and the story is fabricated and concocted as
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58715 of 2018 dt.20-12-2018
2/2

there was no demand of dowry. It was further submitted that the

opposite party no. 2 had left the matrimonial home. It has further

been stated in the petition that the petitioner is ready to settle the

matrimonial dispute. Earlier, notice was issued to the Opposite

Party No. 2, but despite her father receiving the same, nobody

appeared on her behalf when the matter was taken up and heard.

5. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner, who is

the husband of the Opposite Party No. 2, is alleged to have

kidnapped and married the younger sister of the Opposite Party

No. 2, which itself shows his character. It was further submitted

that nowhere in the entire petition, such fact has been denied by

the petitioner.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Anand Kr.

AFR/NAFR
U
T

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation