Patna High Court
Sarwar Alam vs The State Of Bihar on 19 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77876 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2019 Thana- AAJAM NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Sarwar Alam, aged about 23 years (Gender-M), Son of Md. Fajlu Resident of
Village - Gajhout, P.S.- Azam Nagar, District - Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chain Banu, aged about 20 years, (Gender-F), Wife of Sarwar Alam,
Daughter of Md. Wajid Alam, Resident of Village - Sirajmani, P.S.-
Abadpur, District - Katihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
For the State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-01-2021
Heard Mr. Bimal Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State
and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Falka Azam Nagar PS Case No. 200 of 2019 dated 03.08.2019,
instituted under Sections 147/376/313/323/504/406 of the Indian
Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The allegation against the petitioner, who is the
husband of the opposite party no. 2, in the FIR which has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77876 of 2019 dt.19-01-2021
instituted pursuant to a complaint filed having been referred to
the police by the concerned learned CJM, is that prior to
marriage the petitioner used to come to her house and they
developed intimacy and she became pregnant and the same was
got aborted and thereafter she was married on 02.05.2018. It has
further been alleged that the father of the opposite party no. 2
and the father of the petitioner were partners in sale and
purchase of wood. The further allegation is that two lakhs fifty
thousand rupees was demanded after marriage and she was
mentally and physically tortured and subsequently ousted from
her matrimonial home and after 3-4 months a panchayati was
held but they were adamant for the dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
they are simple people and the distance between the villages of
the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 is 16 kilometers and
they had no prior touch with the family and by mediation of
others the marriage was settled and on the same day the sister of
the petitioner was also married. It was submitted that soon after
marriage, the family members of the petitioner detected the
pregnancy and took her to a doctor on 31.05.2018 where a seven
months' old foetus was detected and ultrasound was also done,
copy of which is on record by way of annexure. It was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77876 of 2019 dt.19-01-2021
submitted that when the family of the petitioner informed the
father of the opposite party no. 2, he took her with him and said
that they would decide later as to where the girl would be sent.
Learned counsel submitted that the father of the petitioner had
gone to the house of the opposite party no. 2 but they had not
sent her with them on the pretext that they would be consulting
the villagers and also that in the meantime they had got the fetus
aborted. Learned counsel submitted that the investigation
reveals that the prescription of the lady doctor is correct which
reveals that on 31.05.2018 there was a seven months' old foetus,
which is clear from the ultrasound report. Learned counsel
submitted that the petitioner is a poor person doing embroidery
work having no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that
though there is allegation against the petitioner and his other
family members, but charge-sheet has been submitted only
against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian
Penal Code and the investigation has revealed that the report of
the doctor is genuine and the husband of the lady doctor
concerned who is also a doctor has confirmed that what is
written in the prescription is correct.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77876 of 2019 dt.19-01-2021
submitted that though today she was called but she has missed
the train and could not come before the Court.
7. Earlier by order dated 28.09.2020, the Court had
required the petitioner as also the opposite party no. 2, along
with their guardians, to be present. Today, only the petitioner
and his father are present but the opposite party no. 2 is not
present and, as has been informed by learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2, it is due to the fact that she has missed the
train today.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
submitted that the petitioner was the person who was the father
of the foetus which was aborted and further that he had married
her knowing fully well that she was pregnant and also that they
had got the foetus aborted. However, on a query of the Court as
to how in the complaint/FIR it has been stated that the abortion
was done prior to marriage, when, even three weeks after the
marriage, a seven months' old foetus has been found by the
doctor, which is also supported by ultrasound report, learned
counsel could not give any reply to such query.
9. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77876 of 2019 dt.19-01-2021
six weeks from today, the petitioner be released on bail upon
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned SDJM, Katihar in Azam Nagar PS Case No. 200 of
2019, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, one of the
bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner. The petitioner
shall cooperate with the Court. Failure to do so shall lead to
cancellation of his bail bonds.
10. The application stands disposed off in the
aforementioned terms.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
