Kapil Raut v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17627 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2015 Thana- BAUNSI District- Banka ====================================================== KAPIL RAUT Son of Naresh Raut Resident of Village- Babhandiha, P.S.- Jarmundi, District- Dumka (Jharkhand).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Punam Devi Wife of Kapil Raut and Daughter of Dashrath Yadav Resident of Village- Barmasia, P.S.- Bounsi, District- Banka. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03-12-2021 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Bounsi P.S. Case No. 149 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 498A, 379, 506, 509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing specific is alleged against this petitioner. Petitioner is ready to keep the informant with full honour and dignity. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17627 of 2019(11) dt.03-12-2021 2/2 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 are allegations of torture and demand of dowry against him and others. 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