Rajeev Kumar Sah @ Ragiv Kr. Sah v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2738 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1468 Year- 2015 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- SUPAUL ====================================================== RAJEEV KUMAR SAH @ RAGIV KR. SAH, S/o Dev Nandan Sah, Resident of Village- Panchu Tola, P.S.- Sonbarsha Kachahari, DistrictSaharsa. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Kiran Kumari, W/o Rajeev Kumar Sah, D/o Hari Narayan Sah, Resident of Nayanagar, Ward No. -14, P.S. + District- Supaul. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : Smt. Asha Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the complainant.
In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1468 C of 2015 Corresponding to Cri. Comp (P)/ 1422/2015 for the offences punishable under section 498 A of the I.P.C and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The complainant was married to the petitioner four years ago and after two years of marriage second marriage (Duragaman) was performed and after some time the petitioner and other co-accused started demanding motorcycle and cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- and due to non fulfillment the petitioner and others
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2738 of 2017 (6) dt.09-05-2017 2/2 started abusing and torturing her and ultimately assaulted her causing injury to her resulting the complainant was treated in the sadar hospital.
Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner was/is always ready to keep the complainant as his wife with honour and dignity but she does not want to live with the petitioner, the complainant is making false allegation, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, the allegations are omnibus and general in nature and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.
The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is the husband and he is responsible for all the acts. The complainant has been assaulted causing injury to her and as such the petitioner does not deserve pre-arrest bail.
In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to him and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with the aforementioned case pending in the court of C.J.M. Supaul. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T