Anand Kumar @ Ricky v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10789 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -332 Year- 2016 Thana -BARH District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Anand Kumar @ Ricky, S/o Late Dayanand Prasad, R/o Village- Nilamie Gali, Salimpur Ward No.12, P.S.- Barh, Dist- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Nikita Kumara (Soni), D/o Laddu Gopal Sao, R/o Village- Talibpur Ward No.14, P.S.+P.O.- Barh, District- Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Rita Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2017 Both the informant and the petitioner are present in court with their respective counsels.

Heard.

It has been submitted by the informant (wife) that she has performed love marriage with the petitioner on 24-11-2013 in Ram Janki Mandir, Barh. In support of such averment, the certificate issued from the temple has been produced. It has also been submitted that the Election Identity card has been prepared in the name of the informant wherein her husband's name has been mentioned as Anand Kumar Gupta (petitioner). The document of bank account has been produced, in which, money has been transferred in the account of the informant by the petitioner. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10789 of 2017 (4) dt.08-05-2017 2/2 petitioner has however denied about solemnization of marriage with the informant. He has also denied the genuineness of the election identity card.

During hearing of the bail petition and from the talk of the informant, it appears that there was relationship between the informant and the petitioner. The petitioner however denies any relationship with the informant.

On the basis of documents filed on behalf of the informant in support of her claim and the submissions made before the court, this court does not think it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 332 of 2016 stands rejected.

The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail, which shall be disposed off on the same day without being prejudiced by this order in accordance with law.

(Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T