Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48413/2016dismissed

Arjun Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-11-29Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48413 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -220 Year- 2012 Thana -MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMADHUBANI ====================================================== Arjun Kumar, son of Bhikari Mahto, resident of Village-Birta, Post Musharniya P.S. Sonbersha Dist-Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Usha Devi, wife of Arjun Kumar, resident of village- Birta, PostMusharniya, P.S. Sonbersha, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Hirday Prasad, Mr. Sangiv Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renuka Ratnakar, A.P.P. Mr. Krishna Narayan Jha, ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-11-2016 Heard Sri Ram Hirday Prasad, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Sangiv Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner , Smt. Runuka Ratnakar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Krishna Narayan Jha, learned counsel, who has voluntarily appeared on behalf of the complainant/Opp.Party no.2.

The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.220/2012, T. R.No.4286/2015 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. At the very outset, by way of referring to the statement made in paragraph-9 of the petition, learned counsel for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48413 of 2016 (2) dt.29-11-2016 2/2 the petitioner submits that the petitioner, husband of complainant/Opp.Party no.2, is still ready to keep her as wife with all respect and dignity. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that earlier on number of occasions, this plea was taken and settlement almost arrived but immediately thereafter, the petitioner has disowned her. Keeping in view the stand taken by learned counsel for the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 as well as the allegation made in the complaint petition, there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T