Sanjay Sharma v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20014 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -671 Year- 2013 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Sanjay Sharma, aged about 40 years S/o Late Dayashankar Sharma, Resident of Village Aranda, Post Office & Police Station-Mazruhalak Nagar, District Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sangeeta Devi W/o Sanjay Sharma, D/o Niranjan Pandey, Resident of Village Aranda, Post Office & Police Station Mazruhalak Nagar, District Siwan. At present Mohalla- Gayghat North Gali, Police Station- Alamganj, District Patna.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ........................

17-06-2015 Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Shashi Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.

The petitioner, who is husband of the complainant, apprehending his arrest in Complaint Case no.671 of 2013, in which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after a

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20014 of 2015 (2) dt.17-06-2015 2/2 long time, a complaint was filed. He further submits that the petitioner is still ready to keep the complainant respectfully as wife.

However, the learned counsel for the complainant is opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail. He further submits that the petitioner has solemnized second marriage, which was disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that of course, offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code was alleged, but during enquiry no sufficient material was brought on record and, as such, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

Be that as it may, keeping in view the nature of accusation, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U