Rudal Paswan @ Uma Kant Paswan v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71547 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-377 Year-2012 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Rudal Paswan @ Uma Kant Paswan Son of Lal Bihari Paswan, Resident of Village-Abupur, Paveri Bazar, P.S.-Korai, District-Nalanda. At Present Harnichak, Anisabad, P.S.-Beur, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
State Of Bihar and Anr 2.
Guriya Devi, Daughter of Rajeshwar Paswan, Resident of Village-Rampur, Garikhana, P.O.P.S.-Khagaul, District-Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sri Mritunjay Kumar Nirala ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 17-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 377(c) of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 495, 323, 120(B) 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 O.P. No.2 is not ready to settle their dispute therefore the mediation between the parties has failed which is evident from the report of the Mediator, at Flag-M. Hence, the petitioner may be granted the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71547 of 2018(5) dt.17-06-2019 2/2 privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has already married with another lady and he has performed second marriage with the O.P. No.2 after suppressing the fact that he has already married with another lady. Moreover, the petitioner used to assault the complainant for non fulfillment of the dowry demand. He is also not ready to keep her as a wife. 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