Jitendra Pandit v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25127 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -743 Year- 2015 Thana -JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE DistrictJEHANABAD =========================================================== Jitendra Pandit son of Shri Suresh Pandit, resident of Village Islamchak, P.S. Kako, District Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ranju Devi, wife of Jitendra Pandit, resident of Village Islamchak, P.S. Kako, District Jehanabad .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Ms. Rashmi Kumari Mandilwar with Mr. Nitya Nand Neeraj, Advocates For the State : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner seeks bail in Complaint Case No. 743 of 2015 dated 19.08.2015 instituted under Sections 494/498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner, who is the husband,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25127 of 2016 dt.13-06-2016 2/2 is of demand of Rs. 5,000/- per month for maintenance of the son and daughter born to him out of the wedlock with the opposite party no. 2 and that he has remanded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 does not want to live with him and keeps going to her parents' place and thus he has been falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior motive.

Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 oppose the prayer for bail. They submit that despite there being two children, the petitioner has re-married and further that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner ever tried to bring the opposite party no. 2 back home, if the allegation of opposite party no. 2 deserting him is correct.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR N/A CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 13.06.2016 Transmission Date 13.06.2016