Pradeep Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11641 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -31 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA PS District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Pradeep Kumar Ram S/o Sheo Kumar Rai @ Ramayan Ram @ Sheo Kumar Ram, resident of village- Khan Patti, P.S. - Kuchaikoat, Distt. Gopalganj.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Anita Devi, d/o Inder Dev Ram, resident of Gidha, P.S.-Phulwaria, District-Gopalganj.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajeev Nayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 3/ 02-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State as well as counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. The Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Gopalganj (Mahila) P.S. Case No.31 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj.

It is alleged that the marriage of the complainant was performed in the year 2008. The petitioner at that time was unemployed. He got job in railway in the year 2011, and thereafter, he started committing physical and mental torture with the complainant and making demand of rupees five lacs in dowry and finally ousted the complainant with her son from the house. The complainant-Opposite Party No.2 has appeared

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11641 of 2017 (3) dt.02-05-2017 2/2 and produced voter identity card issued from the Election Commission of India, wherein, petitioner's name is mentioned as her husband's name.

Similarly, Xerox copy of the acknowledgement of the application for Residential Certificate has been filed, wherein, petitioner's name is mentioned as husband's name of Opposite Party No.2.

In such circumstances, from the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that after getting job in railway in 2011, he started committing physical and mental torture with the complainant-Opposite Party No.2 and ousted her from the house along with her minor son.

In view of such, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Prayer is rejected.

The petitioner may surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T