IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55319 of 2007 MOBINA KHATOON, WIFE OF MD. AKRAM Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD AKRAM, SON OF ABDUL SALAM For the petitioner : Mr. Madhusudan Kumar For O.P.No.2 :Mr.Md. Kamran For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 06. 23.07.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the informant of the case. She is aggrieved by order dated 20.09.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in A.B.P. No.617/07, whereby the husband (o.p.no.2) has been granted anticipatory bail. While assailing the order, it is contended that section 498A does not require and/or warrant as a matter of course presence of physical injury. It is thus contended that reasoning assigned by learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law. He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Noorjahan vs. State (AIR 2008 S.C.2131). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, on the other hand, submits that going by the allegation made in the complaint she was physically assaulted. In that light, it has been observed by learned court below that no physical injury on the body of the informant was found. It is further contended that the husband has already approached the Islamic Shariah Court and has obtained divorce. It is further contended that the wife has already filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking - 2 - maintenance wherein the husband is paying the maintenance amount as per the order. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. Learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order has taken note of the fact that the occurrence, even as per the prosecution case, has not taken place in close proximity of the marriage. The marriage was solemnized in 2002, whereas the present FIR was lodged in the year 2007. It appears from the impugned order that learned Sessions Judge has followed the ratio laid in the case of Ajay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 2006(2) P.C.C.R. page 150. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court the aforesaid judgment. Instead he has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Noorjahan vs. State of Bihar (Supra). The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was considering the order passed by the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal of the appellant and thereby upheld the conviction for offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has placed reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment. Perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment in no way supports the contention of the petitioner. Grant of bail is judicial discretion. Of course, the Court has to assign reasons therefor. This Court finds from the impugned order that adequate reasons have been - 3 - assigned by the court in support of the order. This Court thus does not find any illegality meriting interference by directing for cancellation of anticipatory bail already granted to the husband (o.p.no.2). The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )