← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15397/2020rejected

Pappu Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

2020-11-10Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15397 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2017 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE District- Darbhanga ====================================================== PAPPU PANDIT Son of Janki Sharan Pandit, Resident of Village - Pakhauli, P.S.- Jale, District - Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Manju Devi Wife of Pappu Pandit Daughter of Chhote Sah, Presently Residing at Village - Samdhiniya, P.S.- Jale, District - Darbhanga. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-11-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No.560 of 2017 for the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The complainant (wife of the petitioner) alleged that the petitioner subjected her to all sorts of torture due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and the petitioner is not ready to keep her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner solemnized marriage with the complainant without

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15397 of 2020(5) dt.10-11-2020 2/2 taking any dowry but now the complainant is not willing to live with the petitioner, but it appears that the petitioner deserted his wife due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and the petitioner is also an accused in Darbhanga (Mahila) P.S. Case No.41 of 2015 registered under Sections 376, 313 and 34 of the I.P.C. On query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not willing to keep his wife. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T