Munna Mehta @ Munna @ Munna Kumar Mehta v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26238 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1383 Year- 2013 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Munna Mehta @ Munna @ Munna Kumar Mehta, Son of Nago Mehta, Resident of Village- Sauraha, P.S.- K. Nagar, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Asha Devi, D/o Satya Narayan Mehta, W/o Munna Mehta , Resident of Village- Sirnia, P.S.- Forbesganj, District Araria. .... .... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. For the State : Mr. For the Complainant/Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER -------------- 29-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1383C of 2013 registered under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Sri R.K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Araria. The accusation is of torturing the complainant/opposite party no.2 by her husband (petitioner) and other in-laws for non fulfillment of the dowry demand and to remove the complainant/opposite party no.2 alongwith her children from the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26238 of 2017 (3) dt.29-08-2017 2/2 matrimonial house by snatching her personal belongings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in fact, the petitioner is ready to keep his wife (the complainant/opposite party no.2) with full honour and dignity but she is not ready to live with the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.2 submits that since the petitioner has performed his remarriage, due to that reason, the complainant/opposite party no.2 apprehends her life to danger and she does not want to live with the petitioner. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from today and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T