Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2253/2017rejected

Mohit Nathani @ Mohit Kumar Nathani v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-06-22Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2253 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1762 Year- 2015 Thana -EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- EASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Mohit Nathani @ Mohit Kumar Nathani, S/o late Santosh Kumar Nathani, R/o Moh. Purani Gudri Brahmni Kunj near Sani Mandir, P.S. Nagar (Town), Dist. Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Aarti Devi, W/o Mohit Kumar Nathani, D/o Muari Lal Modi .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nachiketa Jha For the Informant : Mr. Navin Kr. Singh For the State : Mr. Pranav Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Tr. No. 1991 of 2016 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1762 of 2015 registered under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., (Sadar) Motihari (East Champaran).

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner, who happens to be husband, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the allegation of demand is against the mother of the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2253 of 2017 (3) dt.22-06-2017 2/2 opposed the prayer of the petitioner with submission that due to non-fulfillment of demand, the petitioner and other co-accused persons caused cruelty and harassment with the complainant. Further submission is that the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for resolving the dispute between the parties, but the same failed.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Shailendra/- U T