Rajnish Kumar Singh @ Rajnish Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41493 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1677 Year- 2011 Thana -SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSITAMARHI ====================================================== Rajnish Kumar Singh @ Rajnish Kumar son of Shri Ram Darshan Singh resident of village.-Tilak Tazpur, P.S.-Runni Saidpur, District-Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Smt. Khushbu Kumari W/o Rajnish Kumar D/o Shri Jaimangal Singh, R/o Village-Tilak Tazpur, P.S.-Runni Saidpur, present address village.- Athari, P.S.-Runni Saidpur, District-Sitamarhi. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amrendra Prasad, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-06-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2.

The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.1677 of 2011 in which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner was married with the complainant in May, 2009. There is allegation that since the day of marriage itself the complainant was being subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On 4.6.2011 she was assaulted and kicked

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41493 of 2014 (3) dt.24-06-2015 2/2 out of her matrimonial home after retaining her belongings. The matter does not end here. The father of the petitioner has instituted Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No.199 of 2011 dated 5.6.2011 under section 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that his daughter-in-law fled away with ornaments, cash and one Saree.

It has been contended that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that right from the day of marriage itself the complainant was being humiliated and harassed for not bringing sufficient dowry. It is not only the complainant but her father and brother have also been made accused in a false criminal case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application is dismissed, resultantly the provisional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 27.3.2015 stands cancelled.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md.S./- U T