Ram Milan Yadav v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.48110 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -85 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- MADHUBANI ======================================================
1. Ram Milan Yadav Son of Late Damodar Yadav, resident of Bakua, P.S.:- Bheja , District:- Madhubani.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sarita Devi, Wife of Ram Milan Yadav, resident of Village- Bakua, P.S. Bheja District:- Madhubani, at present C/o Chalitar Sahu, resident of Village:- Jharba (Bakuniyan), P.S. + P.O.:- Navhatta, District- Saharsa. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Anand Kishore Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Madhubani Mahila P.S. Case No. 85 of 2015 registered under Sections- 341, 323, 498A, 504, 354, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had earlier lodged Bheja P.S. case No. 40 of 2015 against Ram Charitra Sah who had kidnapped his wife. In that case wife of the present petitioner's statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she stated that she married Ram Charitra Sah. Petitioner has already filed a case under section 9
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48110 of 2016 (11) dt.20-06-2017 2/2 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that allegations are specific against this petitioner. Charge sheet has been submitted in the case finding the case true under section 498A IPC. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, I do not feel inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) Manish/- U T