← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3385/2021bail rejected

Aditya Narayan Kushwaha v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-30Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3385 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur ====================================================== ADITYA NARAYAN KUSHWAHA S/o Kishori Lal Singh Resident of Vill.- Raja Bazar, Bihiya, P.S.- Bihiya, Distt.- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bipin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 30-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case no. 111 of 2019 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the DP Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner is husband of the informant. He along with his family members have tortured in various ways due to non-fulfillment dowry demand and finally they ousted her and her female child after snatching her belongings.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is husband of the informant and has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3385 of 2021(5) dt.30-03-2022 2/2 been falsely implicated in this case. He had never demanded any thing from the informant. He is ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail and submitted that petitioner has performed three marriages, which appears from para nos. 6 and 8 of the counter affidavit. After enquiry learned SDJM, Saraikela vide order dated 13.12.2019 took cognizance against the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that petitioner is polygamy, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, as such, his application for bail is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U