Manman @ Manman Chaudhary @ Jainiwas Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46424 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2022 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== MANMAN @ MANMAN CHAUDHARY @ JAINIWAS CHAUDHARY S/o Nathuni Chaudhary Resident of Village- Rampur, Police Station- Bhabua, District- Kaimur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

MALATI DEVI D/o Dinesh Chaudhary, W/o Manmand Chaudhary Presently residing at Village- Paduri, P.O. Sohagi, P.S.- Nasariganj, DistrictRohtas (Bihar) ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Pathak,Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Atul Chandra,A.P.P.

Mr.Saroj Kumar Sharma,Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 250 of 2022 punishable for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that her marriage was solemnized with this petitioner in the year 2014 and after the marriage, this petitioner alongwith his mother and father started torturing her for demand of motorcycle and cash of Rs. One lakh alongwith one gold ring and due to nonfulfillment of the same, the accused persons ousted complainant from her matrimonial house on 13.01.2022 after taking her thumb impression on several blank papers.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46424 of 2022(3) dt.03-04-2023 2/2 Petitioner denies the prosecution case and submits that nobody ousted the complainant, rather out of her own sweet will, she left the house of petitioner, since she did not want to lead conjugal life with him. The allegation of demand of motorcycle and cash, as dowry, is totally false. Petitioner is poor person and has got clean antecedent.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for complainant vehemently oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant/O.P.-2 submits that there is specific and direct allegation against this petitioner of demand of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the complainant was subjected to torture and harassment and finally, she was ousted from the matrimonial house.

Considering the nature of allegation and the fact that petitioner is husband of the complainant/O.P.-2 and there is specific and direct allegation of demand of dowry against him, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T