Rajiv Bind @ Rajeev Bind v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33642 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-549 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Rajiv Bind @ Rajeev Bind Son of Late Sudama Bind Resident of VillageNiyamatpur, P.S.- Harnaut, Dist.- Nalanda, At present- R/o village- Devki Dham, Raja Pul, Anandpuri, P.S.- Krishnapuri, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Reena Devi wife of Rajiv Bind @ Rajeev Bind, D/o Raja Bind Resident of Village- Niyamatpur, P.S.- Harnaut, Dist.- Nalanda, At present VillageBegampur, Beldari Tola, P.S.- Bypass, Dist.- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-01-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/complainant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, being the husband, has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that petitioner intends to restitute his conjugal rights but then opposite party no. 2 is not ready to accompany the petitioner. It is next submitted that the instant case has been instituted with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33642 of 2024(5) dt.22-01-2025 2/3 exaggerated allegation in the year 2018 when the petitioner was married to the opposite party no. 2 in the year 2005.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that opposite party no. 2 was married to the petitioner in the year 2005 and out of the wedlock, two children were born who presently are staying with the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the complaint petition, it would manifest that it has been specifically alleged that opposite party no. 2 was ousted from her matrimonial home in the year 2018, as such, she came back to her parental home along with her children. It is next submitted that the petitioner may be aggrieved by the opposite party no. 2 but then in these six years he has not even bothered to take care of the children who are staying with the opposite party no. 2 which amply demonstrates the conduct of the petitioner. It is also submitted that before the learned District Judge an offer was given to the petitioner to keep the opposite party no. 2 and the children but then he refused as would manifest from the order impugned and even denied for mediation.

5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, the Court is not inclined to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33642 of 2024(5) dt.22-01-2025 3/3 extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 549 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City/Successor Court.

6. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T