Shyam Kumar Bhagat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21852 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2020 Thana- SANOKHAR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Shyam Kumar Bhagat Son Of Ramnath Bhagat Resident Of Village And Post Office- Podaiiya Haat, Police Station- Podaiiya Haat, District- Godda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rinki Devi Wife Of Shyam Kumar Bhagat And Daughter Of Vipin Kumar Bhagat Yadav Resident Of Village- Sanokhar, Post Office- Sanokhar, Police Station- Sanokhar, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Syed Masleh Uddin Ashraf For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 05-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Sanokhar P.S. Case No. 36 of 2020 instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the DP Act.

This case relates to torture and harassment due to nonfulfillment of four wheeler as further dowry demand and finally husband of the complainant and his family members ousted her from matrimonial home after snatching her belongings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21852 of 2021(4) dt.05-04-2022 2/2 has submitted that petitioner is husband of the informant and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has never demanded any thing from the informant. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity but it is the informant who had flatly refused to go to her matrimonial home before the learned court below.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail and submitted that accused persons had attempted to pour kerosene oil on the informant with a common view to kill her. Due to threatening of life, informant is not ready to go to her matrimonial home. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that prosecution witnesses, during course of investigation, have also supported the case.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that fact that petitioner is husband and he is responsible to maintain and keep his wife properly, to which he denied, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U