Aditya Kunal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5457 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -168 Year- 2016 Thana -LALIT NARAYAN UNIVERSITY DistrictDARBHANGA ======================================================

1. Aditya Kunal, S/o Shri Narayan Thakur, resident of Mohalla- B.L.T. Gate, Rudia, P.S. Sadar Kokar (B.L.T. More O.P.), District Ranchi Jharkhand.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh 1, APP Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 8/ 07-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State as well as counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. The Petitioner apprehends his arrest in LNMU P.S. Case No.168 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 341, 342, 323, 313, 498-A/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. Petitioner-husband has appeared in Chambers.

Wife-Opposite Party No.2 has also appeared along with minor daughter aged about 2 years.

Wife-Opposite Party No.2 wants to live with her husband along with minor daughter, but husband is adamant not to keep the wife as well as the daughter.

The Court wanted to persuade the husband to keep

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5457 of 2017 (8) dt.07-07-2017 2/2 the wife and daughter, but the husband is adamant not to keep the wife and daughter with him. He has submitted that he has also filed Divorce case against the wife vide Annexure-3. From the conduct of the petitioner-husband, this Court does not find any justifiable reason on the part of the husband to not keep the wife and the minor daughter. There is specific allegation against the petitioner of committing physical and mental torture with wife and ousting her from the matrimonial home. During reconciliation, this Court also finds that he is adamant not to keep the wife without any valid reason, which is mental torture to the wife. Filing of the Divorce case by the husband is also a mental torture to the wife. In view of such, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Prayer is, accordingly, rejected.

The petitioner may surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T