Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar Ram v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15600 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -372 Year- 2014 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================

1. Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar Ram S/o - Sri Rampratap Ram, Aged about, 30 years, Resident of Village- Cheria Bariyarpur, Post- Siripur, P.sCheria, Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sharmila kumari D/o- Bachu Das, Resident of village- Nawab Ganj, P.sAli Nagar, P.s- Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajkumar Rajesh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.N. Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2015 It appears that inadvertently the petitioner had annexed the certified copy of the impugned order of another case. By way of supplementary affidavit, the certified copy of the impugned order is filed. Let the same be kept on record. Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case NO.372 of 2014 registered under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 34 of the IPC.

The wife-complainant made specific allegation against the petitioner that he subjected her to physical and mental torture due to non-fulfillment of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is false and concocted. It would appear from Annexure2 of the bail petition that the wife herself sworn an affidavit stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner against her will but she lived somehow in her in-laws house. Her

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15600 of 2015 (3) dt.30-06-2015 2/2 life became miserable. She with the intervention of her well wishers decided to part with her husband but later on the complainant filed this to extract money from the petitioner but the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner has forged Annexure-2. The complainant did not swear any affidavit nor signed on any affidavit. The petitioner did not agree to keep his wife before the learned Sessions Judge. Considering the facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) ahk/- U T