SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
MD. MUAZZUM @ GUDDU @ MD. MOAZZUM – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR – Respondent
CR. MISC. 33419/2019



Advocates:
['Raj Kishor Prasad', 'Arun Kumar Singh', '', 'Shashi Bhushan Kumar', 'Arti Kumari']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33419 of 2019

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-732 Year-2015 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE

District- Nalanda

======================================================

MD. MUAZZUM @ GUDDU @ MD. MOAZZUM S/o Md. Salim Resident

of Village- Bahadauni, P.S.- Nawada, Dsitrict- Nawada

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR

2.

Mosrat Khatoon W/o Md. Muazzum @ Guddu, D/o Md. Gaffar R/o Ben,

P.S.- Ben, District- Nalanda

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad

For the State

:

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh

For the Informant

:

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA

ORAL ORDER

16

02-12-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party

no. 2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

with Complaint Case No. 732C/2015 registered under Section

498 A of the Indian Penal Code.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is

that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

present case. There is general and omnibus allegation against

the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and

learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33419 of 2019(16) dt.02-12-2021

2/2

opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that

petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no. 2. Further

submission is that after due undertaking given by the petitioner

before this Court vide order dated 06.11.2019, the petitioner has

not kept his wife with full honour and dignity and again he is

alleged to have assaulted and tortured his wife. Hence, this is

not a fit case of anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner.

utkarsh/-

(Arvind Srivastava, J)

U

T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top