Subhash Thakur @ Subhash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47881 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2018 Thana- SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaharsa ====================================================== Subhash Thakur @ Subhash Kumar, Son of Late Nepal Thakur, Resident of Village- Adabari Ward No.15, Naya Tola (Naie Tola), P.S.- Chautham, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Kanchan Devi W/o Subhash Thakur R/o Village- Adabari Ward No.15, Naya Tola (Naie Tola), P.S.- Chautham, District- Khagaria. At present D/o Sahdeo Thakur, R/o Village- Mubarakpur, P.S.- Salakhua, District- Saharsa. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-08-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner, being the husband of the complainant is apprehending arrest in a complaint case wherein process has been directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The prosecution case, as per the complaint petition is that the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant/opposite party no.2 was performed in the year 2014. For few months of the marriage, the relationship between

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47881 of 2019(3) dt.28-08-2019 2/3 the petitioner and opposite party no.2 was cordial and thereafter, for non-fulfillment of the further dowry demand of Rs. 1 lac, torture was inflicted on opposite party no.2 at the hands of the petitioner and other in-law family members. It is further alleged that on 30.12.2017, all the accused persons including the petitioner made an attempt to kill opposite party no.2 by causing burn injury. Ultimately, opposite party no.2 was driven out from her matrimonial house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was minor when he was forcefully got married with the complainant and hence, he is not ready to keep her. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant is admitted. The complainant has also filed Maintenance Case No. 29 of 2019, which is pending before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa and in that case also, the petitioner is not appearing. It is further submitted that the petitioner never filed any case alleging that he, being a minor, was forcefully married with the complainant and this plea, for the first time, is being taken in the present proceeding.

The petitioner and the complainant are present in the Court. The complainant is still ready to resume the conjugal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47881 of 2019(3) dt.28-08-2019 3/3 rights, whereas the petitioner is adamant not to keep her at any cost.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this is not in dispute that the petitioner was married with the complainant when there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner ever raised the issue of being minor at the time of forceful marriage at any forum and keeping in view the present stand of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

However, learned Court below may consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner, if he surrenders within a period of six weeks in connection with Complaint Case No. 52C of 2018, pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Saharsa. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Amrendra/- U T