Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19760/2021rejected

Bharti Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-03Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19760 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-1998 Thana- BAHERI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== BHARTI DEVI W/O KRISHNA KANT MISHRA Resident of Village - Vipin Garden Extension, P.O.- D.K. mohan Garden, P.S.- Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gaurav Govind For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Baheri P.S. Case No. 2 of 1998 registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 325, 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner had no knowledge about lodging of the present case as she had left her matrimonial home after second marriage of co-accused Krishna Kant Mishra and immediately after knowing about the case she has filed the application for grant of bail. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19760 of 2021(5) dt.03-03-2022 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and she kept on absconding which resulted in long delay in the trial. She, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. 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 anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T