Balram Jee v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26325 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2021 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== BALRAM JEE SON OF RAM KISHOR KUMAR @ RAM KISHORE SINGH R/O VILLAGE- JAGDISHPUR, P.S.- SURAJGARHA (SURYAGARHA), DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
PRITAM KUMARI WIFE OF BALRAM JEE AND D/O- RAM KRISHNA SHANKAR R/O VILLAGE- JAGDISHPUR, P.S.- SURAJGARHA (SURYAGARHA), DISTRICTLAKHISARAI.
PRESENTLY, DUKHHARAN TOLA, WARD NO.-6, P.S.- BARHIYA, POST- BARHIYA, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI, PIN CODE- 811302 ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Jitendra Narain Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Surajgarha (Suryagarha) P.S. Case No. 220 of 2021 registered for the offence under sections 341, 323, 498A, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26325 of 2022(11) dt.15-05-2023 2/2 informant. Petitioner is still ready to keep his wife with full honour and respect. Petitioner Learned Adll. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct allegation of assault against this petitioner which is supported by the injuries sustained. Moreover, the petitioner being the husband had the responsibility of keeping his wife with full honour and dignity, in which he failed. The petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of allegations levelled and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T