Bishanu Kumar Gupta v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3185 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -810 Year- 2015 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Bishanu Kumar Gupta, S/o Basistha Narayan Gupta, R/o Village + PostSant Ram Ganj Bazar (Bhadwra), P.S.- Gahmar, District- Gajipur, StateUttar Pradesh .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Rani Palvee @ Sweety Kumari, W/o Bishnu Kumar Gupta, R/o Village+ Post- Sant Ganj Bazar (Bhadwra), P.S.- Gahmar, District- Gajipur, StateUttar Pradesh, At present R/o Village +Post- Gorari, P.S.- Karakat, DistrictRohtas (Bihar) .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Angad Kunwar, Advocate Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Dr. Rabindra Kumar (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 03-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 810 of 2015 instituted for the offence under Sections 498(A), 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
As per complaint petition the complainant was married with this petitioner in the year 2012. She went to her sasural and lived there happily for couple of days. Thereafter, this petitioner started making demand of motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and on showing inability by her father, she was physically
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3185 of 2017 (2) dt.03-02-2017 2/2 and mentally tortured and ousted from the house by this petitioner and other accused persons.
During argument of this case, the counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that wife is ready to live with her husband.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that husband is not ready to keep his wife. He has further stated that she is suffering from mental disorder and therefore, he is not ready to keep his wife. Learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas has mentioned in the impugned order that petitioner refused to keep the complainant despite readiness of the complainant. The petitioner has stated that complainant is suffering from mental disorder but no any document has been filed in support of such statement. In such circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected in connection with Complaint Case No. 810 of 2015, pending in the court of learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas. (Sanjay Priya, J.) ravi/- U T