Dhananjay Pratap Singh @ Dhanjit Pratap Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.21197 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -113 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHAR District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Dhananjay Pratap Singh @ Dhanjit Pratap Singh Son of Nathuni Singh Resident of Village - Baruhi, P.S. - Sahar, District - Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the Informant.
In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sahar P.S. Case No. 113 of 2016 for the offences punishable under section 498 (A)/34 of the I.P.C and section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Allegedly, the informant was married to the petitioner in the year 2014 and after two months due to non fulfillment of demand of motorcycle and gold chain by way of additional dowry the petitioner and other in-laws started torturing and assaulting her and ultimately they were trying to kill her by roping in the neck. Submission is of false implication and that no injury
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21197 of 2017 (2) dt.11-07-2017 2/2 has been caused to the informant, all the allegations are false and concocted, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner but the petitioner being husband is being harassed, the petitioner is ready to keep the informant as his wife with honour and dignity but she does not want to live with him and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.
The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is the husband and he is solely responsible for all the omissions and commissions. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to him and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with the aforementioned case pending in the court of A.C.J.M-X, Bhojpur, Ara. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T