Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28980 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2018 Thana- AKBARPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Yadav Son of Dhaneshwar Yadav Resident of Village - Jogna Par, P.S.- Akbarpur, District - Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar 2.
Gudia Kumari D/o- Jainandan Yadav Resident of Village - Dohra, P.S. -Nardiganj, District- Nawada ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
M/s Sheo Kumar Prasad Amrendra Kumar, Advocates For the State :
Mr.Rana Randhir Singh, APP For the O.P. No. 2 :
M/s Niranjan Kumar and Pankaj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-11-2019 Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel of opposite party no. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 498A, 307, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Petitioner happens to be the husband of opposite party no. 2 and earlier the dispute of the parties was referred to Mediation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna, but the dispute of the parties could not be resolved.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28980 of 2019(4) dt.20-11-2019 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 but the first information report goes to show that petitioner and one another accused assaulted the victim by means of iron rod as a result of which, she sustained injury and got admitted herself in hospital where her statement was recorded.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, it is made clear that this order shall not cause any prejudice to the concerned court at the time of consideration of regular bail application of the petitioner.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) Spd/- U T