Ajay Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21102 of 2015 (5) dt.08-10-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21102 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -76 Year- 2014 Thana -KEOTI District- DARBHANGA ====================================================== Ajay Kumar son of Raj Kishore Sah resident of Village - Laxamipur, P.S. - Kaluhai, District - Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Smt. Soni Devi daughter of Sri Dinesh Sah resident of Village - Chhatwan, P.O. - Chhatwan, P.S. - Keoti, District - Darbhanga. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Subhas Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 08-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

. The date 8th of October, 2015 had been fixed in presence of learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 is present in Chamber as per the earlier direction dated 29.09.2015 whereas the petitioner fails to appear before this Court and the excuse being offered for his absence is that he is suffering and is having temperature. Prior to this also, it has been observed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2015 that if no one appears on behalf of the petitioner the interim protection which was granted in favour of the petitioner stands vacated, despite such specific direction, the petitioner has not appeared today in chamber.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21102 of 2015 (5) dt.08-10-2015 Since the opposite party No. 2 has undergone massive mental torture on account of his peculiar acts, it had necessitated her to file the present case.

That apart since interim maintenance matter is pending before the Court Below in which no order has yet been passed on account of the failure of the petitioner to appear in the maintenance matter, it is not desirable that the petitioner be granted any further indulgence.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that opposite party no. 2 has not appeared in the Court below where the petitioner has filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights but opposite party no. 2 submits that she has come here today with an open mind to go with the petitioner that if the petitioner assures her as he has stated in the petition that he is willing and ready to keep his wife with full dignity and honour. However, the same is possible only if there is no concubine in the picture.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T