Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8872/2025dismissed

Vikrant Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-22Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8872 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda ====================================================== Vikrant Chauhan S/O Uday Chauhan R/O Village - Girdhar Chak, P .S- Wena, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Phulmanti Kumari D/o- Dyanand Jamadar R/o- Milkipur Chakdaulat PsRahui (Bhagam Bigha) Dist- Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Anand, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Nalanda Mahila P.S. Case No. 03 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The informant alleges in her fardbeyan that her marriage was solemnized on 24.03.2021 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The petitioner tortured her and ousted her from the matrimonial home.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The informant is not his wife, and in paragraph no. 8 of the bail petition, the petitioner has mentioned that Pooja Kumari is his wife

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8872 of 2025(4) dt.22-09-2025 2/2 and his marriage with said Pooja Kumari took place on 26.04.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has concealed four criminal antecedents in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition. He has further submitted that the petitioner was also an accused in Complaint Case No. 386(C) of 2019, lodged by one Vanita Kumari and the petitioner had filed his bail application in that case. In paragraph no. 5 of that bail petition, the petitioner stated that Vanita Kumari is his wife and he wanted to keep her with full dignity and honour.

6. The petitioner appears to be a person of dubious conduct.

7. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T