The Court declined pre-arrest bail to the petitioner as he remarried without taking steps to restore his matrimonial relationship: High court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.319020 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 525 Year 2019 Thana COMPLAINT CASE District Araria Md. Muzaffar Husain aged about 30 years Male son of Abdul Rakib resident of village Dalmalpur P.S. Amour District Purnia ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar Somaya Begum @ Bibi Somaya aged about 25 years Female D o Manjur Alam W o Md. Muzaffar Hussain resident of Village Chakai P.S. Jokihat District Araria ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State For the OP No. 2 Mr. Md. Ziaul Quamar Advocate Ms. Meena Singh APP Mr. Nafisuzzoha Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 26 08 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Md. Ziaul Quamar learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Meena Singh learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State and Mr. Nafisuzzoha learned counsel for the opposite party no 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 525 C of 2019 dated 26.12.2019 instituted under Sections 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.319020 dt.26 08 2021 4. The petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no. 2 complainant and as per the complaint there was demand of dowry of rupees two lakhs cash and one bullet motorcycle. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence the petitioner and other accused persons had snatched gold jewellery and the complainant and her child was sent to her parents’ house and even in the Panchayati the petitioner is said to have been adamant on the demand of dowry 5. The Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner and his mother under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 4 of the Act. 6. On 09.03.2021 the Court had issued notice to the opposite party no. 2 and had granted interim protection to the petitioner on the stand taken by him that he was unconditionally ready to keep the complainant with him with full dignity honour and security. 7. On 27.07.2021 learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 had informed that though the petitioner had remarried another woman still the opposite party no. 2 was ready to go and live with the petitioner if he provides her a separate accommodation and keeps her with full dignity honour and security and takes care of all her needs. The Court had thus Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.319020 dt.26 08 2021 adjourned the matter for today when both the petitioner as well as opposite party no. 2 were directed to file affidavit. 8. No affidavit is on the record 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had gone to the house of the opposite party no. 2 to bring her back but he was locked up and beaten and when the opposite party no. 2 did not return to the matrimonial home he has married another woman 10. Having considered the matter the Court finds that the allegation made in the complaint cannot be brushed aside as being frivolous and appears to be very natural. Moreover the petitioner having remarried without taking steps to restore the matrimonial relationship or attempting any reconciliation and most importantly there being a child the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner 11. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed 12. Interim protection given to the petitioner under order dated 09.03.2021 stands vacated. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 

Summary: The petitioner was arrested under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, “Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty”, and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, “Penalty for demanding dowry if any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees” This present petition is in connection with Complaint Case No. 525-C of 2019 dated 26.12.2019. In the high court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 26th of August 2021 in the case of Md. Muzaffar Husain, versus the state of Bihar and Somaya Begum @ Bibi Somaya, criminal miscellaneous No.31905 of 2020. Md. Ziaul Quamar represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Ms Meena Singh represented the state of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr Nafisuzzoha was represented as the  Advocate for the informant, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner is the husband of the complainant, the informant made a complaint that there was a demand of dowry of rupees two lakhs cash and one bullet motorcycle. The petitioner was adamant on demanding dowry and he has also been accused that he and other accused persons had snatched gold jewellery from the complainant and her child were sent to her parents’ home and also to the Panchayati. The Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner and his mother under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the dowry prevention Act. The court had issued notice to grant the opposite party and granted interim protection to the petitioner only because the petitioner on the stand promised that he was unconditionally ready to keep the informant and live with her with dignity and honour and security. However on the 27th of July 2021, the counsel for the informant brought to notice that the petitioner actually remarried another woman and even then the informant (opposite party no.2) was ready to live with him as long as she provided a separate accommodation and respects her with dignity, honour and security and take care of her as she has a child as well. No affidavit was placed on record. The counsel for the petitioner held that the petitioner had visited the home of the informant to bring her back to his home however he was locked up and beaten and since the informant did not return back home he married another woman to move on with his life. The court held that “Having considered the matter, the Court finds that the allegation made in the complaint cannot be brushed aside as being frivolous and appears to be very natural. Moreover, the petitioner having remarried without taking steps to restore the matrimonial relationship or attempting any reconciliation and most importantly, there being a child, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.  Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.  Interim protection is given to the petitioner under order dated 09.03.2021 stands vacated.”