IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45176 of 2008 SHAHZADA KHURRAM @ KHURRAM …. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …. OPP. PARTY ----------- 2. 26.11.2008 Heard Md. Sufiyan, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri D. Mehta, APP for the State. The petitioner is the husband and is in custody in Gaya Kotwali P.S. Case No. 191 of 2008 since 7.9.2008. The case is under Section 498A etc. of the IPC. If one could go through the written report one could not isolate certain incidents, but atrocities or ill-treatment against all the accused persons generally and this petitioner specially. All statements are generally and individually made that the petitioner and his family members ill-treated and tortured the lady. There is no reason as to why. The incident of a fracture has also does not getting support from the investigation as there is no mention of this aspect of the matter in the final report by the police. Besides, two ladies accused persons have not been sent up by the police indicating that the allegations were not true. If one could go through the written report, one could not distinguished that there could be individual separate allegations against any of - 2 - the accused persons. The copy of the final report has been produced during the hearing, which shall be kept as part of the record. The reason for filing of the case as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner’s mother owned cloth outlet and market complex. One of the shop, which was in possession of the informant’s father was being sold and he wanted the same to be purchased and offered the petitioner to purchase it jointly, but after having got the part of the money from the petitioner of the total consideration amount the informant’s father got the property into his own son’s name. The contention is that the issue was railed by the petitioner with his father-in-law through the informant herself and he assured the petitioner that he will get back the money, but he does not return. The second contention is that a property was purchased jointly in the name of the petitioner and he transferred the money from his father’s account into the account of the informant’s father but he does not appear paying up the money. The contention is that the petitioner is in custody and in spite of that he is ready to - 3 - live with the lady along with his little daughter. Regard being had to the facts as indicated above and the defence, let petitioner Shahzada Khurram @ Khurram be released from custody on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 191 of 2008. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)