Saurav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33269 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -10 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA THANA District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Saurav Kumar Son of Kedar Choudhary @ Nishakar Choudhary Resident of village - Rahimpur, Choudhary Tola, P.S. Muffasil, District - Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agarwal Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam For the informant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nilesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-02-2017 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 10 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that petitioner denies the factum of marriage in this case and except two photographs produced by learned counsel for the informant nothing has been brought on record to show that the marriage between the parties, was ever solemnized and, therefore, no question of torture or other allegation arise. It has further been submitted that petitioner is a Government Servant and hence, there is no chance of his absconding, if released on bail. Heard learned counsel for the State and learned counsel

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33269 of 2016 (8) dt.27-02-2017 2/2 appearing on behalf of the informant. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that during the course of investigation father and mother of the informant has also admitted and supported the version of the informant that petitioner had married with the informant. It has further been submitted that now the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner.

Having heard both sides, in view of the fact that now the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, finding the case true and cognizance has been taken, as such, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner, the privilege of anticipatory bail, it is accordingly rejected.

Let petitioner surrender before the Court below and pray for regular bail and if any such application is filed, the same will be considered by the court below on the merit of the case, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T