Akhilesh Prasad @ Akhilesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6644 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-428 Year-2016 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE District- Nalanda ====================================================== Akhilesh Prasad @ Akhilesh Kumar, son of Rajeshwar Prasad, Resident of Village- Abbupur, P.S.- Karai Parsurai, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Neelam Devi, Wife of Akhilesh Prasad, D/o Naresh Prasad, Resident of Village- Naviganj, P.S.- Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Lovekush Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akbar Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 26-06-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.428 C of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 498A, 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is of demanding Rs.50,000/-, due to non-fulfillment of the said demand, complainant was tortured and assaulted by the petitioner and his family members and for that she has approached the Mahila Police where matter was compromised, but again she was ousted from her matrimonial house.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is ready to keep her with dignity and care and the allegation is false and concocted, even before the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6644 of 2019(4) dt.26-06-2019 2/2 Sessions Judge she does not appear, which will appear from the impugned order.

Heard learned A.P.P. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 also, who has opposed the prayer for bail by stating that earlier also a bond has been executed in the year 2015 which will appear from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 to get her and her son and is ready to keep her with full dignity and care, but in spite of that, the petitioner has not brought them. The petitioner has tried to deceive the Court as is apparent from the facts as stated above.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, and the allegation, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court below and make prayer for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the learned trial court on its own merit. With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sunil Shukla/- U T