Suraj Chaurasiya v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40909 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-397 Year-2021 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== Suraj Chaurasiya Son Of Vijay Chaurasiya Resident Of Village- Jabra, PsNokha, Distt- Rohtas, At Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rekha Devi Wife Of Suraj Chaurasiya Resident Of Village- Jabra, PsNokha, Distt- Rohtas At Sasaram At Present Mohalla Aalamganj PoSasaram, Ps- Sasaram (TOWN), Distt- Rohtas At Sasaram ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jai Prakash Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Abhay Kumar For the O.P. No. 2 :
Mr. Rajani Kant Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-09-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 397 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 submits that on the last occasion when the case was taken up on 28.08.2024, a specific submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that he will go to the parental house of the O.P. No. 2 on or before 16.09.2024 for fetching her back to her matrimonial home and on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 it was submitted that in the event if the petitioner comes to fetch the O.P. No. 2 back to her matrimonial home, the O.P. No. 2 shall willingly join without any protest. The learned counsel next submits that petitioner before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40909 of 2023(4) dt.23-09-2024 2/2 this Court had assured that he will go the parental home of the O.P. No. 2 for fetching her back, but then petitioner never came to the house of the O.P. No. 2 for fetching her back to her matrimonial home nor ever contacted her which amply demonstrates that petitioner never had any intention of restituting his conjugal rights, but only with a view to seek stay made such false submission.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 that petitioner despite giving assurance to this Court never went to the house of the O.P. No. 2 for fetching her back to her matrimonial home when based on his instruction, a categoric submission was made that petitioner will go and fetch the O.P. No. 2 back to her matrimonial home.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T