Bideshi Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.31096 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2975 Year- 2011 Thana -KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictKATIHAR ====================================================== Bideshi Mahto S/o Late Lagan Mahto, R/o Singal Tola, Manihari, P.S.- Manihari, Distt.- Katihar .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rekha Devi W/o Bideshi Mahto, D/o Nepali Singh, R/o Tikapatti, P.S. Tikapatti, District Purnea .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : APP For Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 20-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in connection with Complaint Case No. C.A. 2975 of 2011.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to keep the opposite party no. 2 with due dignity and honour but it is the opposite party no. 2, who does not want to live with the petitioner and his mother.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 relies on the statement made in the counter affidavit to submit that the petitioner has solemnized another marriage with one Maya Devi, Daughter of Madho Mahto, Resident of Village Baijnathpur Diyara, P.S. Manihari District Katihar. In
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31096 of 2014 (5) dt.20-07-2016 2/2 such circumstances, it is submitted that the very fact of such second marriage of the petitioner with Maya Devi amounts to inflicting cruelty upon the opposite party no. 2 and she is unable to live with the petitioner who is residing with the second wife.
5. Considering that the statement of the opposite party no. 2 with regard to the petitioner's second marriage with Maya Devi has not been controverted by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Bail petition stands dismissed.
6. The provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 20.01.2015 shall stand cancelled. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- U T