Ajit Kumar Das @ Ajit Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44301 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2492 Year-2018 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District- Katihar ====================================================== Ajit Kumar Das @ Ajit Das, son of Dhirendra Chandra Das Resident of Village-Karanpur, P.S.-Balrampur, District-Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Aalsi Devi, Wife of Ajit Kumar Das @ Ajit Das and D/o Gulwa Das Presently resides at village-Telta Bohar, P.S.-Balrampur, District-Katihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Qumrul Hoda For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyavrat Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complain Case No.2492 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 385, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner in the complaint petition is that marriage of the petitioner was performed with Opposite Party No.2 in the year 2008. It has further been alleged that after one year of marriage, accused persons started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of said demand, the Opposite Party No.2 was tortured and assaulted by the petitioner and other accused persons. It has further been stated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44301 of 2019(2) dt.18-07-2019 2/2 that out of wedlock, one baby child was born, however, the allegation in the petition is that the petitioner solemnized second marriage with one Bharti Devi and Opposite Party No.2 was ousted from her matrimonial home.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case inasmuch as Opposite Party No.2 is not willing to live with the petitioner, as such, petitioner has performed second marriage.

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and taking into consideration the fact that the second marriage has been admitted by the petitioner, in my opinion, the same itself shows the torture to Opposite Party No.2. Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sanjeev/- U T