Himmat Singh @ Himmat Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11592 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Buxar ====================================================== HIMMAT SINGH @ HIMMAT KUMAR SINGH Son of Rajesh Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Dalippur, Police Station- Dhangaee, DistrictBhojpur. ... ... Petitioner.

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ragini Kumari W/o Himmat Singh, D/o Jalandhar Rai Resident of VillageKant, Post office- Kant, Police Station- Brahmpur, District- Buxar. ... ... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Dhar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 27-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

In compliance of the order dated 30.01.2023 petitioner and O.P. no.2 physically present before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within three weeks.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act pending in the learned court below. The allegation against the petitioner is of torturing the informant in association of his family members on account of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11592 of 2022(5) dt.27-02-2023 2/2 non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and of ousting her out of the matrimonial house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is not ready to live with O.P. no.2. He submits that the from perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has already married with other girl therefore she is not ready to live with the petitioner. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Buxar Mahila P.S. Case No. 110 of 2020. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T