Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33072/2024bail rejected

Om Babu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-02Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33072 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2018 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Om Babu Ram Son of Ram Belash Ram Resident of Kharg Pokhariya Mishrauli, P.S.- Chanpatia, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Patna 2.

Shobha Devi Wife of Om Babu Ram, Daughter of Banshi Ram Resident of Village- Bankat Puraina, P.S.- Chanpatia, Dist.- West Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Kumar Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 02-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 217 of 2018 registered under Sections 494 and 498(A)of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 22.04.2018 by the informant, Shobha Devi.

3. This is the second anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Earlier having been rejected on 23.05.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8971 of 2023.

4. As per the prosecution story, the informant's parents on the occasion of marriage of his daughter gave ornaments, furnitures and cash as per his capacity. Further, after

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33072 of 2024(2) dt.02-08-2024 2/2 sometime, female child was born where after the in-laws demanded golden chain and cash of Rs. 1 lakh. Due to non fulfilment of the said demand, they stopped her food and finally after snatching her 'Stridhan' the in-laws ousted her from the house. Accordingly, the FIR.

5. The petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that a certificate has been issued duly signed by the villagers to show that she has subsequently married someone else.

6. This Court has nothing to do with the alleged certificate. The anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected earlier and more than a year later, he is roaming free and now with another anticipatory bail. This Court refrains from passing any adverse order but so far as the anticipatory bail is concerned, the same stands rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/- U T