Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16225 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna ====================================================== AMIT KUMAR S/o Naresh Bhagat Resident of Jamuna Tower, Block (B), D2, R.M.S. Colony, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
Nisha Sharma W/o Amit Kumar Resident of Jamuna Tower, Block (B), D2, R.M.S. Colony, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Raj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 31-01-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 136 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations levelled are general and omnibus against all the accused persons including this petitioner. Petitioner is still ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 with full honour and dignity. Petitioner has no criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16225 of 2020(6) dt.31-01-2022 2/2 antecedent.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is direct allegation against him of demand of dowry and torture. Moreover, petitioner being the husband had the responsibility of keeping his wife with full honour and dignity, in which he failed. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T