Anil Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42996 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2019 Thana- BISHWAMBHARPUR DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== 1.

Anil Chauhan, son of late Siobachan Chauhan, 2.

Most. Shanti Devi, wife of late Siobachan Chauhan, both resident of villageTirbirawa, P.S.- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Saroj Devi, d/o Shailendra Chauhan, resident of village- Vijaipur, P.S.- Vishambharpur, District- Gopalganj.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhramveer, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP For Opposite Party No.2 :

Mr. Jitendra Kr. Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 16-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Vishambharpur P.S. Case No.39 of 2019 dated 14.05.2019 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The petitioners are husband and mother-in-law, respectively, of the opposite party no. 2.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is of demanding dowry, assaulting and torture.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are ready to keep the opposite party no. 2, but she is not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42996 of 2019 dt.16-11-2019 2/2 ready to come. It was further submitted that the allegation of assault in the house of the opposite party no. 2 cannot be believed.

6. Learned APP and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the stand taken of keeping the opposite party no. 2 by the petitioners is an eye wash. It was submitted that earlier also opportunity was given, but the petitioners did not take the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation of demand of dowry and assault of the opposite party no.2 cannot be disbelieved at this stage and in any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of pre-arrest bail.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for pre-arrest bail.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

9. The interim protection of no coercive steps against the petitioners given by order dated 11.07.2019 stands vacated. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) J. Alam/- AFR/NAFR U T