Munmun Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50585 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2019 Thana- DAUDPUR District- Saran ====================================================== MUNMUN SHARMA Son of Uma Shankar Sharma Resident of VillageBangra, P.S.- Daudpur, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 14-08-2019 This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Daudpur P.S. Case No. 4/2019, disclosing offences under Section 420, 406, 498(A), 379, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner happens to be husband of the informant and allegation against him is of subjecting the informant to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and ousting her from the house. It further appears that earlier also, the informant has filed and application for Domestic Violence before the Mahila help line, which ended with compromise, thereafter, the informant went to her sasural but she was again tortured and ousted from the house by the petitioner after snatching all her belongings and further the impugned order shows that the informant has appeared but the petitioner refused to take her with himself.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has earlier filed divorce case against the informant on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50585 of 2019(2) dt.14-08-2019 2/2 the ground of adultery and desertion and, thereafter, she has filed the present false case. However, on query, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the divorce case was filed in the year 2018 and an application for domestic violence was filed by the informant in the year 2017. On query, he has also admitted that he is not paying any expenses.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner so desire, may surrender in the court below and pray for regular bail and if any such application is filed, the court below will dispose of the same on the merit of the case, without being prejudiced by this order. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T