Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14655 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2021 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai ====================================================== ROHIT KUMAR Son of Anjani Kumari Verma R/V- Ishwar Nagar (Ishak Chak) Bishari Asthan P.s- Ishckchak, Dist- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Suraj Deo Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 16-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint P.S. Case No. 25 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai.

Petitioner, who is husband of opposite party no2., used to torture mentally and physically to the opposite party no. 2 due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner has neither tormented nor demand dowry from the opposite party no. 2. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the petitioner has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14655 of 2023(2) dt.16-05-2023 2/2 filed a divorce case, thereafter the present case is filed by the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposing the bail petition submitted that in the Maintenance case No. 22 of 2021, order is passed against the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 but the said amount has not been paid to opposite party no. 2 till date.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of the offence and the fact that there is specific allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T