Ratanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5496 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2017 Thana- MEHANDIGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Ratanjay Kumar S/O Nand Kishore R/O Raghunathpur Karahi, Raghunathpur karai,P.S- Sahebganj Kamal, Distt.- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Veena Devi D/O Sachhidanand Singh R/O Raghunathpur Karahi, P.SSahebganj Kamal, Distt.- Begusarai. Present Address- Deep Nagar, Road No. 4, Kaushal G Ka Makan, P.S- Mehndiganj, Distt.- Patna. Permanent Address- D/O Sachidanand Singh, R/O Birju Bigha, P.O- Meyar, P.S- Silao, Distt.- Nalanda- 803116.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhimanyu Deo, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Shaheen Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mehandiganj P.S. Case No. 67 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 498A, 379 of the IPC.

3. The informant alleges that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2009. The informant made allegation that her husband (the petitioner) took away her ornaments, cash, mobile, and marriage photographs. Later on, she came to know that he had solemnized his second marriage with one Kanchan Kumari.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5496 of 2025(6) dt.23-12-2025 2/2

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He is a person of clean antecedent. He has not solemnized marriage with the informant.

5. The present FIR has been instituted in the year 2017. The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail after a prolonged period of time after lodging of the FIR i.e. after seven and a half years.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn't deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T