Dhiren Mallik @ Dhiren Mallick v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67562 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2017 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE District- Madhepura ====================================================== Dhiren Mallik @ Dhiren Mallick S/o Yogi Mallik Resident of VillageRanipatti,Ward No.15, P.S. Kumarkhand,Distt.-Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
State Of Bihar and Anr 2.
Anika Devi Wife of Dhiren Mallik D/o Nago Mallik Resident of VillageRanipatti, P.S. Kumarkhand,Distt.-Madhepura, at present Resident of Village-Amha,P.S. Supaul,Distt.-Supaul ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Amarnath Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sri Shailendra Kumar -1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehend his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 163 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 379, 498(A), 494, 506, 380 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the dispute between the parties could not be resolved through the process of mediation as O.P. No.2 does not want to live with her husband. The petitioner is still ready to keep O.P. No.2 with full honor and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67562 of 2018(5) dt.19-06-2019 2/2 dignity. Hence, the petitioner may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for appearing for O.P. No.2 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has performed another marriage and he does not want to keep the O.P. No.2 in his house. The petitioner used to assault her for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T