Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51402/2016rejected

Rabindra Rai @ Rabindra Kumar Rai v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-11-22Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51402 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-468 Year-2015 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran ====================================================== Rabindra Rai @ Rabindra Kumar Rai, S/o Silanath Rai, Resident of VillageJagdishpur, P.S.- Garkha, District- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Malti Devi, W/o- Rabindra Rai @ Rabindra Kumar Rai, D/o- Bahadur Rai, R/o Village- Jagdishpur, P.S. Garkha, District- Saran at present VillageTuzarpur, P.S.- Khaira, District- Saran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI SATYENDRA PRASAD ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-11-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 468 (C) of 2015 (Tr. No. 2430 of 2016) registered for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the husband of the complainant. He never demanded any dowry nor tortured her. He is still desirous of living with the complainant for which he has filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights before the concerned Family Court. He is ready to keep his wife with full owner and dignity. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51402 of 2016(7) dt.22-11-2017 2/2 prayer for bail submits that petitioner being the husband is very much responsible for maintaining and keeping his wife with full owner and dignity, in which he failed. There are allegations against him.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T