Sumit Rastogi @ Gandhi @ Sumit Kumar Rastogi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46812 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-386 Year-2021 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== SUMIT RASTOGI @ GANDHI @ SUMIT KUMAR RASTOGI S/O LATE AJAY RASTOGI R/O VILLAGE/ MOHALLA- KUDRA BAZAR, PS. KUDRA, DIST. KAIMUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

SRIMATI JYA GUPTA W/O SRI SUMIT RASTOGI @ GANDHI R/O VILLAGE- KUDRA BAZAR POST OFFICE GALI, PS. KUDRA, DIST. KAIMUR. AT PRESENT ADDRESS- VILLAGE- BHARANDUA, POSTPS. CHENARI, DIST. ROHTAS ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Lal For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Kanhaya Lal Bhaskar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-02-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rohtas Complaint Case No. 386(C) of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, at the outset, submits that petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 were married in the year 2010 and out of the wedlock, two children were born, but thereafter the petitioner started torturing the O.P. No. 2 for dowry. It is next submitted that petitioner after some time even performed his second marriage with Chulbul Pandey @

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46812 of 2023(5) dt.22-02-2024 2/2 Anupama Rai. It is thus submitted that the petitioner has caused immense mental torture to the O.P. No. 2 by performing his second marriage and at the same time has left all the responsibilities of the children.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently disputes the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is still willing to keep the O.P. No. 2 with honour and dignity along with the children, on which learned APP points out that there is a specific allegation in the complaint case that petitioner has performed his second marriage but there is no rebuttal of the same in the anticipatory bail application which prima facie demonstrates that the petitioner has performed his second marriage or else the petitioner would have denied the said allegation at least.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T