Sehdi Mian @ Sehdi Alam vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 756 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 28047 of 2020
          Arising Out of Complaint Case No.-81 C Year-2019 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN
                             COMPLAINT District- East Champaran
     ======================================================

Sehdi Mian @ Sehdi Alam, aged about 50 years Male, Son of Manzoor Mian, Resident of Village-Belwatia, PS-Sugauli, District-East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sukhi Khatoon, Wife of Sehdi Mian @ Sehdi Alam, Daughter of Israil Mian, Resident of Village-Belwatia, PS-Sugauli, District-Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 08-02-2021

Heard Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Suresh Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Complaint Case No. C-81 of 2019 dated 10.01.2019, instituted

under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had

demanded Rs. 40,000/- and one motorcycle as dowry and due to

non fulfilment, the opposite party no. 2 (his wife), was tortured

and even after she was blessed with a son, the accused had ousted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28047 of 2020 dt.08-02-2021

her from the home snatching her belongings in the year 2009 for

which a complaint was filed which was disposed off on the basis

of compromise and the opposite party no. 2 had gone to live with

her in-laws on 25.11.2017, but again the accused persons ousted

her from the matrimonial home snatching all her belongings

resulting in institution of the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

allegation is false. It was submitted that at the time of marriage the

petitioner was healthy but in an accident, he had lost one hand and

now he is not in a condition to fully earn his livelihood. It was

submitted that the petitioner has filed a divorce case which was

dismissed. It was submitted that even the case filed for

maintenance by the opposite party no. 2 has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not in a

position to keep the opposite party no. 2 with him.

5. Learned APP submitted that the fact that the opposite

party no. 2 has been ousted despite having given birth to a son

clearly indicates that the petitioner is at fault. It was further

submitted that the stand taken by the petitioner that he is not in a

position to keep his wife is a further proof that the fault is on his

part. Learned counsel submitted that if at all the petitioner is

handicapped then he should have been more eager to get his wife Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28047 of 2020 dt.08-02-2021

back so that there was some support to him, but taking the stand

that he cannot take his wife back is itself an indication that the

allegations are true. Learned APP further submitted that if the

petitioner has clean intention then upon the wife having gone

away, he was required to file a petition for restitution of conjugal

rights to bring her back and not to file a divorce petition to finally

end the relationship.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Anand Kr.

AFR/NAFR U T