Pankaj Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49542 of 2014 (3) dt.01-07-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49542 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2014 Thana -GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Pankaj Kumar Singh S/o Kashi singh Resident of Village - Kararia P.SYadopur District - Gopalganj at present residing at Sareya Ward no. 3 P.S.- Gopalganj District - Gopalganj.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ramraksha Singh S/o Ramneresh Singh Resident of Village - Chakhasana P.S. Kuchaikiote District - Gopalganj.

3. Rambha Kumari, D/o- Ramraksha Singh, resident of village-Chakhasana, P.S. Kuchaikoti, District-Gopalganj .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-07-2015 Vide order dated 14.05.2015, this Court while issuing notice to the Opposite Party No. 3, the parties had been directed to appear before this Court in Chamber.

Both petitioner and the opposite party no. 3 are physically present today. The petitioner and opposite party no. 3 both interacted with each other. Opposite party no. 3 after narrating her version has stated that she is unwilling to go back with the petitioner, as she has been subjected to several types of cruelty and that he is in habit of taking drugs, after which he is not within himself and indulges in acts of cruelty. The petitioner states that opposite party no. 3 has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49542 of 2014 (3) dt.01-07-2015 been behaving in recalcitrant manner and does not desire to stay in his house in a joint family. Petitioner also submits that she has gone to her father's house and expects that the petitioner should come and stay with her. Opposite Party No. 3 denies the same. On query made by the Court as to whether she would like the petitioner to go her father's place, she insists that she is not willing to interact with him at all, live alone, stay with home either at her father's house or in her matrimonial home.

Considering the stand taken by the opposite party no. 3 and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T