Pritam Kumar @ Prahlad Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27139 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nawada ====================================================== PRITAM KUMAR @ PRAHLAD KUMAR SON OF KAILU PRASAD @ HARI NANDAN YADAV R/O VILLAGESINHIN, P.S.- HASUA, DISTRICT- NAWADA ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
PRIYA BHARTI D/O- SATYENDRA PRASAD R/O VILLAGE- PARSA, P.S.- SIRDALA, DISTRICT- NAWADA, PIN CODE- 805125 ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Tej Kumar Maharaj, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 21-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 36 of 2021 registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498(A), 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. Further submission is that the petitioner denies solemnization of marriage with the informant and it is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27139 of 2022(5) dt.21-03-2023 2/2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the prayer of bail and submits that the marriage of the petitioner and the informant was solemnized according to the rites and rituals of the Hindu Marriage Act. He also submits that the petitioner in his supplementary affidavit denies maintenance of the informant. He therefore, submits that petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected.
anuradha/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T