Rajeev Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55009 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -521 Year- 2015 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar, Son of Rajendra Rai, Resident of Village- Jamin Mathiya, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Veena Devi @ Manoj Devi, Wife of Rajiv Kumar & Daughter of Phool Babu Rai, At present residing at Village- Terha Khararoo, P.O.- Turkey Khararoo, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate Mr. Harendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 25-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 521 of 2015, Trial No. 2479 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that complainant was married with this petitioner in the year 2006. She was tortured by this petitioner and ultimately ousted from the house in the year 2009. She gave birth of a son in the year 2008. The petitioner was not caring for the complainant as well as his son.

Today supplementary affidavit has been filed on

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55009 of 2016 (3) dt.25-01-2017 2/2 behalf of the petitioner. In reply to the supplementary affidavit, rejoinder has also been field on behalf of the O.P. No.2. The complainant has enclosed the marriage card, which shows that petitioner has already performed second marriage with another lady. It has further been submitted that petitioner has also filed divorce case against this complainant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is still pending. In such circumstances, this court does not find it fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail petition is hereby rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from today in connection with Complaint Case No. C521 of 2015, Trial No. 2479 of 2016 and seek regular bail which shall be disposed of in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sanjay Priya, J.) ravi/- U T