Rajiv Ranjan v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.25776 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -63 Year- 2017 Thana -MURLIGANJ District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Rajiv Ranjan Son of Shri Manoj Kumar, Resident of Village-Sahugarh, Police Station-Madhepura, District-Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arti Kumari, Daughter of Sikandar Yadav, Wife of Rajiv Ranjan, Resident of Village-Bishunpur, Police Station-Muriganj, DistrictMadhepura, Presently Living at Village-Bishanpur, Post Officer-Parwa Navtoli, Police Station-Murliganj, District-Madhepura. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 63 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 448, 379, 504, 506, 34 of the I.P.C. and 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of C.J.M., Madhepua. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner, who happens to be the husband, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner with submission that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and in-laws
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25776 of 2017 (2) dt.29-06-2017 2/2 family members, who brutally assaulted the informant with intention to kill her and there is sufficient material in several paragraphs of the case diary to support the prosecution version. The informant-wife is also not ready to live with her husband. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) Shailendra/- U T