Avinash Chandra @ Pankaj v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19410 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -235 Year- 2014 Thana -BUDDHACOLONY District- PATNA ====================================================== Avinash Chandra @ Pankaj, Son of Sri Siyaram Singh, Resident of Mohalla - South Mandiri, Kathpul, Police Station - Buddha Colony, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Smt. Pooja Mehta, Wife of Avinash Chandra @ Pankaj D/o Sri Ravindra Prasad, Residing at Mohalla - Kharkhura, Bairagi, P.S. - Delha, District - Gaya.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brajesh Sahay For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.Haque(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ........................

16-06-2015 Heard Sri Brajesh Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.Haque, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Mr. Md. Zavid Jafar Khan, learned counsel, who has voluntarily appeared on behalf of informant.

The petitioner, who is the husband of the informant, apprehending his arrest in connection with Buddha Colony P.S.Case no.235 of 2014 registered for the offence under Sections 498(A), 323, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19410 of 2015 (2) dt.16-06-2015 2/2 petitioner is an Assistant Station Master and is a government servant and the marriage was solemnized in the year 2008 itself. Subsequently, on trivial issue, the present case has been lodged against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. He submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner.

In view of facts and circumstances as well as nature of accusation, which has been detailed in the F.I.R., I do not find any ground for entertaining the anticipatory bail petition. The petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner appears before the court below within a period of one month from today and makes a prayer for regular bail, the learned court below without being prejudiced with this order may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. (Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U