Patna High Court
Saheb @ Md. Saheb @ NunwaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Saheb, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging dowry harassment and torture of his wife. He contended that the allegations were general, omnibus, and stemmed from a petty family dispute, asserting his innocence and clean antecedents. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the nature of the accusations, the petitioner’s clean record, and the procedural propriety of granting bail in a complaint case. Relying on precedent (Md. Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. v. State of Bihar), the Court allowed anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. The order directs the petitioner to surrender within eight weeks if arrested.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a complaint case under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act when the allegations are general and the petitioner has a clean record.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- criminal procedure
- complaint case
- general allegations
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68648 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1038 Year-2021 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Katihar
======================================================
Saheb @ Md. Saheb @ Nunwa S/O Anwar Resident of Village- Bijhot, P.S-
Harischandrapur, District- Maldah (W.B)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mursalin Khatoon D/O Hamidur Rahman, W/O Saheb @ Nunwa R/O
Village- Malikpur, P.O- Nemol, P.S- Azamnagar, Distt.- Katihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Md. Musowir, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, APP
For the Complainant : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 27-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Despite valid service of notice, nobody appears on
behalf of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.
3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint
case registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
4. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that marriage
of the complainant was solemnized with this petitioner as per
Muslim rites and rituals on 16.10.2014. It is alleged that after
marriage, all the accused persons named in the complaint
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68648 of 2024(3) dt.27-01-2026
2/3
petition, including this petitioner, subjected the complainant to
torture and harassment due to non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry and subsequently, ousted her from her matrimonial
house.
5. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner
is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has
falsely been implicated in this case merely because happens to
be husband of the complainant and present case has been lodged
due to petty family dispute. There are general and omnibus
allegations. As a matter of fact, the petitioner at no point of time
demanded any dowry or committed torture. It is further
submitted that petitioner is ready to keep the complainant, as his
wife, with full honour and dignity. It is next submitted that the
case is triable by the Magistrate. In this connection, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this
Court in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul
Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in
2006(3) PLJR 182. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation and clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68648 of 2024(3) dt.27-01-2026
3/3
antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is allowed.
8. Accordingly, let the above named petitioner, in the
event of his arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from
today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Katihar in
connection with C.A. Case No. 1038 of 2021, subject to
condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…