Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17937 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Rohtas ====================================================== SONU KUMAR Son of Baban Kahar Resident of Village - Mani, P.s.- Nokha, Distt.- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

GYANTI DEVI @ GYANTI KUMARI W/o Sonu Kumar , D/o Late Buchan Kahar Resident of Village - Mani, P.S.- Nokha, Distt.- Rohtas, Presently Resident of Village - Shivpur, P.s.- Nokha, Distt.- Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shankar Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State along with the learned counsel for the informant.

2. The matter was referred for mediation and in the mediation, the matter was amicably resolved and the petitioner had agreed to bring back the informant to his matrimonial home.

3. Learned counsel for the informant submits that though the petitioner had agreed to bring back the informant to his matrimonial home but the petitioner brought her to the matrimonial home and thereafter, left for staying with his maternal uncle and aunt. It is next submitted that in the FIR also the informant has alleged that the petitioner is having an affair with his maternal aunt, as such, he is not interested in pursuing his matrimonial life with the informant nor is willing to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17937 of 2022(8) dt.26-07-2023 2/2 maintain her, it is next submitted that the informant is taking care of the father of the petitioner while staying at her matrimonial home but the petitioner is not bothered to take care of his father also, it is also submitted that even the father of the petitioner wants the petitioner to join him and the informant but the petitioner is not willing to leave his maternal uncle and maternal aunt.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner rebuts the submission and submits that the petitioner, from the childhood, has stayed with his maternal uncle and aunt and as such, the allegation as alleged in the FIR does not have any legs to stand but is not able to meet the submission of the learned counsel for the informant that as to why he is staying with his maternal uncle and aunt and not staying with his wife and father.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) HarshPandey/- U T