Pankaj Pandey @ Pankaj Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2741 of 2017 (2) dt.31-01-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2741 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -60 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHAJITPUR District- - ====================================================== Pankaj Pandey @ Pankaj Kumar Pandey son of Manager Pandey, R/o village- Moujegao, P.S.- Sahajitpur, District- Saran.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Reena Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 31-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sahajitpur P.S. Case No. 60 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The informant was married to the petitioner on 11.03.2015 and after lapse of two months the petitioner and others started demanding washing machine which was fulfilled by father of the informant but thereafter, again after 3-4 months the petitioner and others started demanding Rs. 3,00,000/- for business and due to non-fulfillment started torturing her. The brother of the informant came to meet but he was not allowed to meet with the informant unless the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is paid and thereafter, she was assaulted by the petitioner and others and when

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2741 of 2017 (2) dt.31-01-2017 on information the father and other family members came they were also assaulted by the petitioner and others. In the court below mediation was held, the informant went with the petitioner but again she was tortured and ousted from the matrimonial house. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is ready to keep the informant with all dignity and comfort but the informant herself does not want to live with him. No dowry was ever demanded nor anyone has tortured her and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes by submitting that the informant was tortured and assaulted by the petitioner for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T