Umesh Chandra Das v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48513 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2016 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- SUPAUL ====================================================== Umesh Chandra Das S/o Late Roshan Das Resident of Village- Assistant Teacher Middle School, Maricha, resident of Mohalla- Ward No. 20, P.S. & District- Supaul.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Lalita Devi W/o Umesh Chandra Das, Resident of Mohalla- Ward No. 13, Nagar Parisad, Bari Durga Asthan, P.S. Supaul, District- Supaul. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisuzzoha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dinesh Singh Mr. Kumar Ravi Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

13-12-2016 Heard Mr. Nafisuzzoha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Kumar Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner, who is second husband of the complainant/opposite party no. 2, has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 29C of 2016 registered under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner, after the death of his first wife, had solemnized marriage with complainant/opposite party no. 2, who was also a

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48513 of 2016 (3) dt.13-12-2016 2/2 widow. Subsequently, the complainant wanted that her name may be incorporated in the nomination paper so that in the eventuality of death of the petitioner, the opposite party no. 2 may enjoy the benefit of family pension. He submits that this was only object for filing the present complaint petition.

Learned counsel for the complainant has disputed the allegation made by the petitioner and he submits that it was the petitioner, who proposed the complainant to settle marriage and thereafter, marriage was solemnized and after marriage, he started torturing the complainant.

Keeping in view the nature of accusation, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, let the petitioner namely Umesh Chandra Das be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Supaul in connection with Complaint Case No. 29C of 2016, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T