Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38912 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1594 Year-2017 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Jamui ====================================================== SURENDRA YADAV @ SURENDRA KUMAR YADAV Son of Ghanshyam Yadav Resident of Village - Baliadih, P.S. Jhajha, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Khusbu Kumari Wife of Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Kumar Yadav, D/OLate Kailash Yadav Resident of Village - Ghapri, P.S. Jhajha, DistrictJamui. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Nityanand ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2019 Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1594C of 2017 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 380, 307, 498A, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Allegation against the petitioner is of subjecting the complainant-wife to cruelty with respect to demand of dowry. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is still ready to keep her.
However, it appears that by order dated 27.6.2019 notice was directed to be issued to opposite party No.2 and petitioner was directed to file requisites, which was not filed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38912 of 2019(4) dt.04-09-2019 2/2 within the time, as such this application as against opposite party No.2 was dismissed. It further appears from the impugned order that petitioner and opposite party No.2 both appeared before the court of Additional District Judge-III, Jamui and she was ready for reconciliation but petitioner refused to take her stating various absurd reason, as such petitioner has filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act to get anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Considering the above fact, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He may surrender and pray for regular bail.
This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T