Patna High Court
Md. Naziruddin @ Anikul Shekh @ Aanikul ShekhversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Naziruddin, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a criminal case (C.A. No. 411 of 2017) filed under Section 498A of the IPC alleging dowry harassment, physical and mental torture, and forced abortion by his wife. The wife had filed a complaint and the matter was referred to mediation, where the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear, leading to a failed mediation. Despite interim protection being granted, the petitioner chose not to avail it and continued to seek bail. The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail on the merits, but the court noted the serious nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s non‑cooperation in mediation. Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving alleged dowry harassment under Section 498A IPC.
- Whether the petitioner’s failure to appear at mediation impacts the decision on anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A
- mediation
- criminal procedure
- domestic violence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40575 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-411 Year-2017 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Katihar
======================================================
Md. Naziruddin @ Anikul Shekh @ Aanikul Shekh S/o- Abdul Hakim @
Bhola Mistri Resident of Mohalla-Niyamat Hazi Tola PS- Radha Nagar
District- Sahebganj Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Bibi Nayera Khatoon @ Nayera W/o- Md. Naziruddin @ Anikul Shekh @
Aanikul Shekh, D/o- Late Bilet Ali @ Md. Wilayat Ali Village- Muslim Tola
Bolia Ps- Manihari Dist- Katihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bimal Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bishweshwar Ram, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 19-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with C.A. Case No. 411 of 2017 instituted under Section 498(A)
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the O.P. No. 2
filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Katihar stating therein inter alia that she is legally
wedded wife of the accused no. 1 and her marriage was
solemnized on 10.01.2011 and she started leading her conjugal
life in good manner about two years. In course of time, she
became pregnant but it was aborted by the accused persons and
thereafter all the accused persons started torturing her physically
and mentally and demanded dowry of Rs. One lakh.
4. Allegation is that in continuation of torture, in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40575 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
month of December 2014, she was ousted from her matrimonial
house, three Pleader notices were given and seeing no chance of
compromise and restoration of conjugal life, she filed the
present Complaint Case.
4. On the ground that the petitioner will appear before
the Mediator, the coordinate 03.09.2025 sent the matter to the
Mediation Centre where the parties were to appear and in that
background, interim protection was granted to the petitioner.
5. The Mediator’s report dated 12.11.2025 has come
and it records as under:
MEDIATOR'S REPORT
Mediation Proceeding No.1343 of 2025
[Arising out of Criminal Miscellaneous
No.40575 of 20251
Md. Naziruddin @ Anikul Shekh
Aanikul Shekh
Versus
The State of Bihar & Anr
Opposite Party No.2 is present but none
appeared for petitioner who is absent for last three
dates continuously nor his Ld. Counsel turn-up
even once.
In absence of petitioner or his Ld.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40575 of 2025(5) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
Counsel the mediation could not be
proceeded as he has never took interest.
Hence, the mediation is failed.
(Ravi Shankar Sahay)
Mediator
6. The matter is of the year 2017. Despite that, since
the petitioner further undertook to go for mediation, in that
background, the coordinate bench sent the matter to the
Mediation Centre and granted interim relief to the petitioner.
The petitioner chose not to avail it. The Mediator adjourned the
matter thrice but he chose to absent himself on all the dates
assigned by the Mediator.
7. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to
impress upon this Court on the merit of the case, considering the
aforesaid facts, it would be appropriate that he seek bail.
9. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…