Krishna Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36556 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== KRISHNA PANDIT Son of Late Sitaram Pandit Resident of VillageManjhauliya, PS- Belchhi, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rubi Devi @ Rubi Pragya Wife of Krishna Pandit Resident of VillageManjhauliya, PS- Belchhi, District- Patna. At. Present R/o Meura, PSAthmalgola, District- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, Adv Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-03-2024 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned counsel for the OP No. 2.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 335(c) of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 43 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

3.

The learned counsel for the OP No. 2 submits that petitioner is enjoying his life with his second wife and has left the OP no.2 in a helpless state and is not even maintaining her. 4.

It is further submitted that the case was referred for mediation but then the mediation failed. It is next submitted that before the learned Mediator also, it was accepted by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36556 of 2023(4) dt.06-03-2024 2/2 petitioner that he has performed his second marriage. 5.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No.2 that petitioner has performed his second marriage but then submits that he is willing to keep the OP No. 2 with honor and dignity. 6.

In view the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No.2, the court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner accordingly the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T