Gautam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42809 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-587 Year-2023 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Gautam Kumar S/O Suraj Prakash Gupta R/O Village- Mangraon, P.SRajpur, Distt.- Buxar. At Present Sarala Chatti (RAM Pravesh Yadav Ka Makan), Near Sharab Bhatti, P.S- Dildarnagar, Distt.- Ghazipur (U.P.) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Anju Kumari W/O Gautam Kumar, D/O Rameshwar Prasad Rajan R/V Mangraon, P.O- Sangraon, P.S- Rajpur, Distt.- Buxar. At Present VillageSakri, P.S- Kudra, Dist.- Kaimur (BHABUA). ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 406, 504 of the IPC and 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act, but court took cognizance under Section 498A of IPC only in connection with Complaint Case No.587 of 2023.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the office note dated 20.08.2024, it would manifest that notice on behalf of the O.P. No.2 has been received by her father. Since notice has been received by father

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42809 of 2024(3) dt.22-08-2024 2/3 of the O.P. No.2, hence the notice is deemed to have been validly served.

4. The learned submits that petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that the complaint was instituted under Section 498A, 406 and 504 of the IPC read with Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but then court took cognizance of offence under Section 498A of IPC only. It is also submitted that since father of the O.P. No.2 received notice on behalf of the O.P. No.2, but still the O.P. No.2 chooses not to appear and contest which amply demonstrates that O.P. No.2 has no case to plead.

5. The learned APP, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application. It is submitted merely because O.P. No.2 has not appeared does not by any stretch of imagination can be construed that she does not intend to contest the case, it may be a possibility that the O.P. No.2 may not be financially sound to approach the High Court by engaging a learned lawyer or the trauma faced by the O.P. No.2 at the hands of the petitioner was such that she is not interested in pursuing the case. It is also submitted that even petitioner is not willing to pay a decent maintenance.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42809 of 2024(3) dt.22-08-2024 3/3

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Prakash Narayan U T