Ajeet Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20587 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2023 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - BIRAUL AT BENIPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Ajeet Sah Son of Sri Ram Pukar Sah Resident of Village - Sanhauli, P.S. - Kusheshwar Asthan, District - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar 2.
Rubi Kumari Daughter of Shambhu Sah, Wife of Ajit Sah Resident of Village - Sanhauli, Tole - Bishaharia, P.S. - Kusheshwar Asthan, District - Darbhanga ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjit Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Mohammed Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 24-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 226 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 341 and 498(A) of IPC.
3. According to the allegation, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner on 26-05-2022. The accused persons demanded Rs. 5 lakhs as dowry and tortured her for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20587 of 2025(4) dt.24-09-2025 2/2
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The petitioner is ready to keep the victim with full dignity and honour, but she is not willing to reside with the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner is addicted to liquor and, under the influence of liquor, he used to assault the complainant that is why it is not possible for the complainant to reside with the petitioner. They have also submitted that the process under Sections 82 and 83 has been issued.
6. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T