Patna High CourtCR. MISC./45263/2024bail rejected

Pradeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-09-02Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45263 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1870 Year-2022 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District- Vaishali ====================================================== Pradeep Kumar S/O Sita Ram Paswan R/O Village- Mansurpur Kushar, P.SMahua, Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar 2.

Chandni Kumari W/O Pradeep Kumar R/O Village- Mansurpur Kushar, P.SMahua, Distt.- Vaishali. Presently Residing At D/O Kamal Paswan, Of Village- Samastipur Jhitkahi, Post- Baksama, P.S- Goraul, Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Nagendra Prasad Mr.Nafisuzzoha Ms.Shabina Talat Mr.Md. Mahtab Ali Mr.Alammanour ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-09-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Complaint Case No.1870 of 2022, Trial No.377 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that the case was taken up 27.08.2024, when an undertaking was given by the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45263 of 2024(4) dt.02-09-2024 2/2 that he will go and fetch the opposite party no.2 back from her parental home to her matrimonial home on 30.08.2024, but then, petitioner never came to fetch the opposite party no.2 from her parental home on 30.08.2024, which amply demonstrates that petitioner only with an intention to seek stay, gave a false undertaking before this Court.

4. On query of the Court from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as to whether petitioner had gone to the house of the opposite party no.2 on 30.08.2024 to fetch her back to her matrimonial home, on which it is submitted that petitioner did not go to the parental home of the opposite party no.2.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T