Naresh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.343 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-338 Year-2018 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul ====================================================== NARESH KUMAR Son of Kapileshwar Bariyait @ Kapil @ Kapil Bariyait Resident of Balbhadrapur, P.S.- Birpur, Distt - Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sanjan Devi Wife of Naresh Kumar, D/o Jagannath Mairta Resident of Village - Bayasi Garhi, P.S.- Karjain, Distt - Supaul. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Gulnar Begum ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 07-03-2022 Heard the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.338 C of 2018, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he being the husband of the complainant, in connivance with his family members, use to torture the complainant for demand of dowry. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to grudge. The allegation leveled against the petitioner is not specific rather

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.343 of 2020(7) dt.07-03-2022 2/2 general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner has neither demanded dowry nor has tortured the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant left the matrimonial house at the instance of her family members. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as also mentioned in para-3 of this application.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and has tortured her from time to time, for which there is specific allegation upon him.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner named above. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. Accordingly, instant application is dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T