Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48593/2016rejected

Niraj Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-08-01Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48593 of 2016 (8) dt.01-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48593 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1121 Year- 2013 Thana -JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE DistrictJEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Niraj Kumar, Son of Sanjay Singh, Resident of Village- Ramdev Chak, P.S.+District- Jehanabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Swati Devi, Wife of Niraj Kumar, Resident of Village- Ramdev Chak, P.S.+District- Jehanabad.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmanand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Complaint Case No. 1121 of 2013/ Tr. No. 1048 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against this petitioner and no specific overt act is attributed to him. In fact, the petitioner has never assaulted the O.P. No.2 nor any demand of dowry was made by the petitioner. The petitioner is still ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity but the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48593 of 2016 (8) dt.01-08-2017 complainant herself does not want to continue with the conjugal relation with the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. has opposed the prayer for bail of this petitioner and submitted that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the complainant has performed another marriage and there is direct allegation of torturing and harassing the complainant. The witnesses have also supported the prosecution version.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T^