Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22935/2020dismissed

Mukul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-02-01Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22935 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda ====================================================== MUKUL KUMAR Son of Pawan Singh Resident of Harnaut Gonawan Road, North to Road in West of Crossing, Police Station- Harnaut, District - Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Khushboo Kumari Daughter of Rabindra Nath Singh Resident of Village - Kichani, Police Station - Harnaut, District - Nalanda. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 01-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner hereby undertakes to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.

2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 85 of 2019, having earlier been rejected by order dated 06.03.2020 in Cr. Misc. No. 75527 of 2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 313/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22935 of 2020(3) dt.01-02-2021 2/2

3. At the outset, this Court takes note that process under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. had been concluded against the petitioner, by reason of which and in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCT of Delhi, (2012 8 SCC

730) and State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, as noted in the earlier order dated 06.03.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 75527 of 2019, the bail petition had been dismissed as not maintainable.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State, this Court is not inclined to take a different view in the matter from its earlier order dated 06.03.2020 aforesaid. The petition stands dismissed.

5. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) HR/- U T