Ashok Bhagat @ Ashok Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37561 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1721 Year-2014 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Ashok Bhagat @ Ashok Kumar, Son of Ram Ishwar Bhagat, Resident of Village - Sinhaghat, P.S.-Krishangarh (Barahara), District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Geeta Pal, Wife of Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Bhagat, D/O - Chaturbhuj Pal, Resident of Village - Vimwa, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur, Presently residing at Chadroday Nagar, Near Commander Gas Godown, Deopar Rajajipuram P.S.-Rajajipuram, District- Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amarendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1721 (C) of 2014, disclosing offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In this case earlier notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 and it appears from the service report that notice was received by father of the opposite party no.2. Subsequent a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that the opposite party no.2 is residing with her father and they

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37561 of 2019(6) dt.20-09-2019 2/3 are living jointly. In view of the facts, as stated above, the service of notice be accepted as valid.

Prosecution case is of torturing and subjecting the opposite party no.2 to assault since the date of marriage with respect to non-fulfillment demand of motorcycle and other articles and also the accused persons tried to kill her. It further appears from the impugned order that in the court below also he flatly refused to keep her.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the whole allegation is false and concocted and he is still ready to keep her with dignity and care.

Heard learned APP also.

As in this case notice was received by the father of the opposite party no.2, but the opposite party no.2 did not chose to appear nor she has failed any Vakalatnama through any counsel. Having heard both sides, in view of the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, it is always open to the petitioner to pursue the opposite party no.2 and if they are appearing together before the learned court below while praying for regular bail, the court below shall consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37561 of 2019(6) dt.20-09-2019 3/3 With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sunil Shukla/- U T