Ankit Kumar @ Ankit Puri v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13577 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1168 Year-2023 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVaishali ====================================================== Ankit Kumar @ Ankit Puri S/O Ram Rath Puri Resident of Village- Balra, P.O.- Baghi,P.S.- Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur, Pin Code- 844112. Present Address Sumitra Bhawan, Nalanda Colony, Ramchandrapur, P.S.- Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda, Pin Code-803101.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Neha Kumari Wife of Ankit Kumar @ Ankit Puri Resident of Village- Balra, P.O.- Baghi, P.S.- Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur, Pin Code-844112. Present Address/ Nahiyar Address Kavita Kumari, Daughter of Pramod Kumar Giri, Resident of Village - Dabhaich, P.O.-Dabhaich, P.S.- Tisiauta, District- Vaishali.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vasant Vikas, Adv.
Mr. Saroj Kumar, Adv.
For the O.P. No.2.
:
Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-03-2025
1. Heard Mr. Vasant Vikas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nachiketa Jha, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1168 of 2023 dated 09.05.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 354,
2/4 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant stated that on 27.02.2023, on account of demand for dowry, she was physically and verbally abused, all her clothes and jewellery were taken away and thereafter, she was chased out of the house by the petitioner and four other persons. It is also alleged that the petitioner is in an illegal relationship with another woman and does not want to reconcile with the informant who is his lawfully wedded wife.
4. The main submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel are that the petitioner is the husband of the O.P. No.2 and the instant matter is based on a complaint filed by the O.P. No.2. The marriage of the petitioner with O.P. No.2 took place on 22nd February, 2023 and admittedly the complainant started residing at her Naihar since 27.02.2023, so, she stayed at her Sasural only for five days after the marriage and in fact, the O.P. No. 2 herself did not want to lead a conjugal relationship with this petitioner and left the petitioner's house.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that just on the day of marriage, the complainant, O.P.
3/4 No.2 was subjected to physical torture for the demand of a Bullet motorcycle in which the sister of the petitioner intervened and asked the complainant to remain silent on account of the petitioner being in an intoxicated condition at that time and in this regard, the complaint's copy available before this court may be perused. He further submits that the instant matter relates to physical cruelty committed with the O.P. No.2 by the petitioner for which the complainant had to undergo medical treatment at Sadar Hospital, Hajipur, of which details are mentioned in the complaint. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has made a false statement in his petition regarding his willingness to keep his wife. Before the District Mediation Center, at the willingness of the petitioner as well as O.P. No.2, their matter was referred to District Mediation Centre for conciliation where the petitioner did not appear and in this regard, the order dated 10.01.2025, by which the petitioner's anticipatory bail was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge may be perused.
6. Considering the facts of this case and mainly taking into account the nature of allegation relating to physical cruelty made by the complainant against this petitioner coupled with this fact that within a few days after the marriage, the complainant had to start a criminal proceeding against the
4/4 petitioner by filing a complaint and there is specific allegation of physical torture by the pettioner with the complainant, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.
(Shailendra Singh, J) Rajiv/- U T