← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40596/2020rejected

Shyam Kumar Sao v. The State Of Bihar

2022-04-25Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40596 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jamui ====================================================== Shyam Kumar Sao Son of Fakira Sao Resident of Village - Chhatu Dhanama, P.S. - Jamui and District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sita Devi Wife of Shyam Kumar Sao Daughter of Khagpati Mandal, Resident of Village - Sikdardih, P.S. - Deori, District - Giridih (Jharkhand) ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. AJIT KUMAR Mr. ABHAY KUMAR ROY Ms. DIVYA Mr.RAVI SHANKAR ROY ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jamui Mahila P.S. Case No. 73 of 2019, G.R. No. 3413 of 2019 registered under Sections 498A, 307, 328 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Further submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40596 of 2020(7) dt.25-04-2022 2/2 Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no. 2. There is direct allegation against the petitioner of abusing and beating his wife (opposite party no. 2). Hence, petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the opposite parties, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) utkarsh/- U T