SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Md. Nasim vs The State Of Bihar on 6 April, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 32834 of 2020
Arising Out of Complaint Case No.-936 Year-2019 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT
CASE District- Madhubani

1. Md. Nasim, aged about 40 years, Son of Late Badrul Haque.

2. Md. Moien @ Sonu, aged about 24 years, Son of Late Badrul Haque.

3. Masoom Khatoon @ Samima Khatoon @ Shameena Khatoon, aged about
62 years, Wife of Late Badrul Haque.

4. Rizbana Khatoon, aged about 43 years, Daughter of Late Badrul Haque.

5. Afsana Khatoon, aged about 22 years, Daughter of Late Badrul Haque.

All resident of Village – Sagarpur Sakari, PS Sakari, District – Madhubani.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Nasrin Anjum, aged about 23 years, Wife of Md. Jasim, Resident of Village –

Sagarpur Sakari, PS Sakari, District – Madhubani. At present Daughter of
Late Wasi Ahamad, Resident of Village Khajuri, PS Madhubani Town,
District Madhubani.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP
For the Complainant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-04-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the

petitioners; Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State and

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the complainant.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Complaint Case No. 936 of 2019 dated 22.10.2019, instituted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32834 of 2020 dt.06-04-2021
2/4

under Sections 323, 379, 498A, 354 B of the Indian Penal Code

and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The allegation against the petitioners, who are the in-

laws of the complainant, is that after marriage on 18.09.2016,

various articles and jewelry worth Rs. 12 lakhs were given by way

of gift, but soon after the accused persons started demanding Rs. 2

lakhs cash and one Bullet motorcycle and because of non-

fulfillment, she was mentally and physically tortured and despite

there being two infant sons born out of the wedlock, they had tried

to kill her and had also driven her out of the matrimonial home.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

petitioner no. 1 is the elder brother; petitioner no. 2 the younger

brother; petitioner no. 3 the mother and petitioners no. 4 and 5, the

married sisters of the husband of the complainant. It was

submitted that they have no role in any demand of dowry,

especially petitioners no. 4 and 5, who are married and living at

their matrimonial home. It was submitted that the petitioners also

do not obtain anything from such demand. Learned counsel

submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP submitted that there is allegation of

demand of dowry and torture.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32834 of 2020 dt.06-04-2021
3/4

7. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that

the petitioners were also torturing her to fulfill the demand of

dowry as they are brothers/sisters/mother of the husband of the

complainant. It was submitted that the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3

residing in the same place obviously have a role if any member of

the family is tortured and, thus, they cannot be said to be innocent.

However, he did not dispute the fact that the petitioners no. 4 and

5 are married sisters of the husband of the complainant and living

in their respective matrimonial homes.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six

weeks from today, the petitioner no. 4 namely Rizbana Khatoon

and petitioner no. 5 namely, Afsana Khatoon be released on bail

upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand)

each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction

of the learned SDJM, Madhubani in Complaint Case No. 936 of

2019, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

9. The prayer for pre-arrest bail of petitioner no. 1

namely, Md. Nasim; petitioner no. 2 namely, Md. Moien @ Sonu
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32834 of 2020 dt.06-04-2021
4/4

and petitioner no. 3 namely, Masoom Khatoon @ Samima

Khatoon @ Shameena Khatoon, is rejected.

10. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR
U
T

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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