Nitesh Kumar @ Nitesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48317 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-481 Year-2021 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Nitesh Kumar @ Nitesh Ram Son of Sri Arun Ram R/o Village Daulatpur, Chandi, P.O. Harauli, Ward No.2, P.S. Sadar Hajipur, District Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Kanti Devi Late Lal Mohan Das R/O-Bishanpur Bejha Ps Mahua DistVaishali. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prakritita Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-09-2022 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.481 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 365 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioner, who is husband of the informant's daughter, along with other co-accused persons are said to have tortured the daughter of the informant physically and mentally for non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry. It is also alleged that the accused persons have killed the daughter of the informant and concealed her dead body.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48317 of 2021(4) dt.12-09-2022 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never solemnized marriage with the daughter of the informant. It is submitted that the petitioner went to the Investigating Officer of the present case to supply some papers, but he was not ready to accept it.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. The learned APP submits that he has filed counter affidavit in the case and in paragraph12, it is stated that the petitioner has not filed any application before the Investigating Officer till date.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Sanjay/- U T