Ramadhar Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17439 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-782 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== RAMADHAR DAS, son of Late Kariban Das @ Raqmahish Das, resident of village-Chainpura, Police Station Naubatpur, District Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar and Another ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh For O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Pramod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-09-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, Complaint Case No. 782 (C) of 2017, in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner, as per the complaint, is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner on 13.03.2000 and out of wedlock, four children have been born. It has further been alleged that the petitioner has performed second marriage with one Meera Devi on 23.06.2017. It has also been alleged that after second marriage, the petitioner tortured the complainant, mentally and physically and did not provide her any money and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17439 of 2019(5) dt.16-09-2019 2/2 upon asking about the money, the petitioner and other family members used to torture and assault the complainant and her four children and the complainant, at present, is residing with her mother.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of general and omnibus allegation. He further submits that though the petitioner has performed second marriage, he is ready to keep the complainant as his wife.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that after the second marriage, the complainant is being tortured by the petitioner and the matter was referred for mediation, but the mediation between the parties failed.

After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has performed second marriage, which, in my opinion, is itself a mental torture to the complainant, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege ofr anticipatory bail.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed Prabhakar Anand/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) U √ T √