Meghnath Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10927 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2336 Year- 2013 Thana -GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Meghnath Chaudhary, son of Late Dhanesar Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Bheriya, Police Station- Belaganj, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Smt. Kari Devi, wife of Meghnath Chaudhary, Resident of VillageBheriya, Police Station- Belaganj, District- Gaya at present Resident of Village- Naudiha Kala, PO & PS- Wazirganj, Distt- Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 27-03-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 2336/2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and he is ready to keep his wife. The petitioner did not solemnize second marriage. The complainant filed the case only because the complainant is habituated to live in high standards and that is why she does not want to live with the petitioner.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10927 of 2017 (2) dt.27-03-2017 2/2 From perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2008 and the complainant-wife of the petitioner made allegation that the petitioner started demanding additional dowry and due to nonfulfillment of the demand of dowry assaulted her. The petitioner also solemnized second marriage with Manju Devi. She further alleged that the petitioner did not visit her house even to see his child.

Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The petitioner may surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and pray for regular bail and his prayer shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T