Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16216/2015dismissed

Sanjeev Rai @ Sanjeev Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-04-30Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16216 of 2015 (2) dt.30-04-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16216 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1770 Year- 2014 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- MUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Sanjeev Rai @ Sanjeev Kumar S/o- Rambrit Rai, R/o VillageGyasuddinpur, P.S.- Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Priyanka Devi W/o- Sanjeev Rai, R/o Vill.- Munni Kalyani, P.S.- Gai Ghat, District- Muzaffarpur presently D/o - Nand Kishore Rai, Vill.- Baluaha, P.S.- Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar-I, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case no. 1770 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant made specific allegation that the petitioner subjected her to physical and mental torture due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is of course the husband of the complainant but the complainant did not want to live with the petitioner. The marriage was solemnized on 28.05.2013 and now the petitioner is not

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16216 of 2015 (2) dt.30-04-2015 willing to keep his wife. The complainant herself stated in her complaint petition that two and half months before filing of the complaint petition, the complainant left her matrimonial house, but she did not file the case immediately thereafter. Having considered the facts that the petitioner is not willing to keep his wife. Although, from the order of the learned sessions Judge it appears that the wife was willing to live with her husband, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi/- U T