Manish Kumar Pandey @ Manish Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 31015 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-775 Year-2022 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAurangabad ====================================================== MANISH KUMAR PANDEY @ MANISH PANDEY SON OF TRILOKI NATH PANDEY Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board(J.J.B.) Aurngabad, Bihar, Permanent resident of House No.32, Bandh Gown, PS Sarpataha, Dist Jaunpur, UP. At Present- Block Colony, Aurangabad, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Kamlendra Pd Singh, Advocate For the I n f o r m a n t :

M/s Raghunandan Kr Singh, Riya Singh, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-08-2023 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Let it be kept on record.

2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and the learned APP.

3 The petitioner apprehends arrest in Aurangabad Town PS Case No 775 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376, 493, 496, 379, 504, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4 As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, on the pretext of marriage, established physical relations with the informant. It is further alleged that on 28.02.2022, this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31015 of 2023(3) dt.29-08-2023 2/2 petitioner along with other accused persons brutally assaulted the informant and, thereafter, ousted her from the house. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution case is false, fabricated and concocted. As a matter of fact, the informant's marriage was solemnized with Mukesh Kumar in the year, 2016 and the said Mukesh Kumar has already filed divorce case against the informant. By filing supplementary affidavit, petitioner has reiterated the same defence that the informant is in the habit of filing false case. 6 Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

It is submitted on behalf of the informant that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner that he established physical relationship with the petitioner and, thereafter, brutally assaulted the informant and ousted her from the house. 7 Considering the nature of accusation, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) M.E.H.