Abhay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24805 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1182 Year-2018 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVaishali ====================================================== ABHAY KUMAR Son of Dr. Ram Jinish Rai, Resident of Village- Marai, Police Station- Jamdaha, District- Vaishali. At Present Ward No. 18, Laxamipur Block Road, Rosara, P.S.- Rosara, District- samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Supriya Kumari, Wife of Abhay Kumar Daughter of Devendra Rai, Resident of Village- Marai, Police station- Jamadaha, District- Vaishali, At present Rai Niwash, Near I.T.I. Collage, New Bagmusa Colony, Hajipur, P.S.- Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashraf Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2021 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1182 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner never demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. Petitioner is still ready to keep the complainant with full honour and dignity.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24805 of 2019(12) dt.16-11-2021 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture against him. Moreover, petitioner being the husband had the responsibility of keeping his wife with full honour and dignity, in which he failed. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T