Rajiv Jaiswal @ Rajiv Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1989 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-565 Year-2021 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul ====================================================== RAJIV JAISWAL @ RAJIV CHAUDHARY SON OF BASANT CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- DAULATPUR, P.S.- RAGHOPUR, DISTT.- SUPAUL ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
BEBI DEVI WIFE OF RAJIV JAISWAL @ RAJIV CHAUDHARY, D/O BINDESHWARI CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- PASAGARHI, P.S.- JADIA, DISTT.- SUPAUL ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arun For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Kanhaiya Kishore (App100) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State along with the learned counsel for the informant.
The informant, in compliance of the order dated 21.07.2023 is present but the petitioner who was also directed to remain physically present has not come to the Court nor any application seeking exemption from appearance has been filed. The petitioner and the informant were directed to remain physically present for the reason that a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that he will take the complainant from the Court premises itself to which the learned counsel for the complainant had also agreed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1989 of 2023(4) dt.04-08-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the complainant, at this stage, submits that the petitioner will never appear as he never appeared even before the learned District Court when he was called so he is just trying to hoodwink the law. It is next submitted that the petitioner was never interested in reviving the conjugal relationship or else he would have been present physically before the Court today or an application seeking exemption from appearance would have been filed. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) HarshPandey/- U T