Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Sharma v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.7341 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -256 Year- 2016 Thana -MANJHI District- SARAN ======================================================
1. Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Sharma Son of Chandeshwar Sharma, Resident of Village-Pandeypur, P.S. Daraundha, District-Siwan, Bihar. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Kumari, W/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma, D/o Krishnadeo Sharma, R/o Village Manjhi Kanchanpur, P.S. Manjhi, Distt. Saran at Chapra. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Tiwari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmanand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Manjhi P.S. Case No. 256 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Sections307, 498A & other minor sections of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The petitioner is the husband of the informant. This case was earlier referred to Mediation Centre. The report of mediation centre has been received. In the report, it has been mentioned that the dispute could not be resolved through the process of mediation.
Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the girl wants to live with the petitioner but the petitioner is
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7341 of 2017 (4) dt.15-05-2017 2/2 not ready to keep the informant with him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed Divorce Case against his wife. He does not want to keep the informant. From the complaint petition, it appears that the marriage has taken place on 26-11-2015 and just after three months of the marriage, the petitioner has filed Divorce Case against the complainant/informant. The wife still wants to live with the petitioner but he is not ready to keep the wife. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is working in Railway and therefore, he does not want to keep her. In such circumstances, keeping in view such conduct of the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail which shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T