Rajesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47427 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-980 Year-2020 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVaishali ====================================================== Rajesh Ram S/O Late Parshuram Ram R/O Village And P.O.- Gurmia, Ps. Lalganj (KARTAHAN O.P.), Dist. Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Priyank Devi W/O Rajesh Ram R/O Village And P.O.- Gurmia, Ps. Lalganj (KARTAHAN O.P.), Dist. Vaishali. Present Address/ Nahiyar Address Priyank Devi, D/O Devendra Ram @ Deva, Resident Of Village- Fatahpur Ekara, P.O.- Thathan Buzurg, Ps. Hajipur Sadar, Dist. Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vasant Vikas, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Braj Kishore Pd., APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-10-2023 Despite of inter appearance, no one appears on behalf of the complainant.

2. Heard Mr. Vasant Vikas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Braj Kishore Pd., learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 980 of 2020, dated 15.06.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. According to prosecution case, all the accused persons including the petitioner assaulted the complainant and also tried to put her on fire due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47427 of 2023(3) dt.12-10-2023 2/2 petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the complaint petition is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint petition.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of material available on record and the impugned order has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the conduct of the petitioner is not fair and he has tried to play game with the Court itself.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 980 of 2020 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.

8. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T