Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8396/2017dismissed

Kumari Chunchun @ Chunchun v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-03-17Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8396 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -244 Year- 2016 Thana -GAYA MUFFSIL District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Kumari Chunchun @ Chunchun, wife of Anoop Kumar, Presently residing at Bishnu Vihar, Near Jagjiwan College, Gaya, P.S. - Sadar Muffasil Gaya, P.O. - Buniyadganj, District - Gaya, Permanent resident of Village - Dadpur, P.S. - Bela, P.O. - Bhimdaspur, District - Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Ajay Kumar Sharma

3. Archana Sharma

4. Sandeep Kumar 2 to 4 presently residing at Gopalpura Colony, Qtr. No. C/5/17, P.O. - Moogma, P.S. - Nirsa, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand). Permanent resident of Village - Shankardih, P.S. - Parwalpur, P.O. - Shakardih, District - Nalanda (Bihar).

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gopesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-03-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 have been allowed anticipatory bail by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gaya, by order, dated 02.09.2016, passed in A.B.P. No. 2364 of 2016, in connection with Gaya Mufassil Police Station Case No. 244 of 20165, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8396 of 2017 (2) dt.17-03-2017 2/2 The Opposite Party No. 2 is father-in-law of the petitioner, Opposite Party No. 3 is mother-in-law of the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 4 is brother of the husband of the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that they obtained privilege of anticipatory bail on the basis of wrong submission that the parties were making attempts to get the dispute resolved.

However, considering the nature of case and relationship of the opposite parties with the petitioner, the order granting anticipatory bail cannot be said to be unjustified.

This application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √