Husband Dr. Chandra Prakash Gupta @ Dr. Chandra Prakash v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8790 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== HUSBAND DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH GUPTA @ DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH Son of Bhola Prasad Resident of 203 Wazir Hasan Road Sant Guru Ravidas Nagar, P.S-Hazratganj, District-Lucknow. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Soni Kumari Wife of Dr. Chandra Prakash Gupta @ Dr. Chandra Prakash, Daughter of Late Brijnandan Resident of Main Road, Loha Patti, Sitamarhi, Police Station-Sitamarhi, District-Sitamarhi. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjeet Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Nityanand, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 14-02-2020 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sitamarhi Mahila P.S. Case No.37 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 498A, 504/34 of the IPC and 3⁄4 of D.P. Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2019. Learned counsel for the informant assisted by learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8790 of 2020(2) dt.14-02-2020 2/2 for bail and submits that petitioner is husband of the informant and the informant was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner. Further submits that informant was ousted from her matrimonial house after snatching her belongings. Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.
However, the learned lower court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Arvind Srivastava, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T