Mithilesh Yadav v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2884 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -131 Year- 2016 Thana -IMAMGANJ District- GAYA ====================================================== Mithilesh Yadav son of Ram Parvesh Yadav resident of village - Dukhadpur, P.S. Imamganj, Dist - Gaya.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Pushpa Devi wife of Mithilesh Yadav, D/o Ramchandra Yadav resident of village - Maigra, P.S. Maigra, Dist - Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. Jamil Akhtar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 17-04-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the Informant.
In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 131 of 2016 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 504, 498 (A) and 34 of the I.P.C and section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The informant Pushpa Devi was married to the petitioner on 26.04.2014 and thereafter the petitioner and other inlaws started demanding motorcycle and due to non fulfillment they stopped food and started assaulting her. Out of the wedlock there is a child also. The behaviour of the petitioner and other inlaws did not change, they continued to assault the informant and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2884 of 2017 (3) dt.17-04-2017 2/2 lastly they ousted her from the in-laws house after snatching her child. Inspite of the request made by the family members of the informant they are adamant on their demand resulting the informant is living with her parent.
Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner never demanded anything, the petitioner is ready to keep her with honour and dignity but she is adamant and she does not want to live with the petitioner and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.
The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is the husband and he has created everything resulting the life of the informant has became spoiled.
In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with the aforementioned case pending in the court of S.D.J.M. Sherghati, Gaya.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T