Mithilesh Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10755 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-677 Year-2017 Thana- AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Aurangabad ====================================================== MITHILESH MEHTA Son of Indradev Mehta, Resident of Village - Dilapar (Matpa), P.S.- Kutumba, Distt.- Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Sangeeta Devi W/o Mithilesh Mehta, D/o Lakhan Mahto Resident of Village - Kutumba, Distt.- Aurangabad. At Present resident at Ajaniya, P.S.- Simra, Distt.- Aurangabad.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Santosh Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 13-12-2021 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 677 of 2017 filed for the offence under sections 498A, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibiton Act. .

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is still ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity, rather she herself is not willing to live with this petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10755 of 2020(3) dt.13-12-2021 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused and there is direct allegation against all the accused persons including the present petitioner. Moreover, petitioner being the husband had the responsibility of keeping his wife with full honour and dignity, in which he failed. Petitioner, 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