Raushan Lal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6682 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-763 Year-2019 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== RAUSHAN LAL Son of Shri Ram Murti Singh Resident of Mohalla - Bahadurpur Bagicha, Near beside house of Shri. Rambabu Singh, Police Station - Bahadurpur, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Smt. Vijay Jyoti Wife of Shri Raushan Lal Daughter of Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh, Resident of Panchawati Colony, House no.117, Near Mahavir Mandir, East Gola Road, Bailey Road, Danapur Cant, Police StationRupaspur, District - Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhijeet Gautam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 13-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 763 of 2019 registered under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6682 of 2020(9) dt.13-01-2022 2/2 opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is husband of opposite party no. 2.There is direct allegation of demand of dowry, torture and cruelty against the petitioner. Further he contended that on perusal of report of the Mediator dated 16.12.2021, it appears that in spite of best and sincere efforts made between the parties, the mediation failed. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected. shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T