Raj Kishor Tiwary v. State Of Bihar And ANR
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8589 of 2015 (5) dt.01-07-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8589 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1280 Year- 2012 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Raj Kishor Tiwary S/o - Ram Swarath Tiwary R/o Village - Deorarh, P.S. - Chenari, District - Rohtas, Sasaram.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Arun Devi W/o - Raj Kishor Tiwary, D/o Ram Nagina Choubey R/o Village - Deorath, P.S. - Chenari, District - Rohtas, Sasaram, At present Village - Bhandua, P.S. - Chenari, District - Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 01-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
On earlier occasion vide order dated 06.05.2015, a report was sought for, from the Superintendent of Police, Kaimur at Bhabua regarding the antecedents of the Tejpati Singh, who allegedly, handed over the marriage card of the petitioner, who is said to have solemnized marriage with one Kumari Tunni daughter of Parasnath Pandey, Village- Madanpura, P.O.- Piya, P.S. - Sohan, District - Kaimur, to the complainant. A detailed report has been sent to this Court vide Memo No. 894 of 2015 dated 08.06.2015 conducted by the SDPO, Bhabua in pursuance of the direction issued to the S.P. Kaimur. In the said report, it is clearly indicated that the marriage had been
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8589 of 2015 (5) dt.01-07-2015 solemnized between the petitioner and one Ranjita @ Tunni, which was also admitted by the father and mother of the said girl. Considering the fact that earlier this Court had extended the interim protection to the petitioner on 04.03.2015 and subsequent to the passing of the said order, the petitioner went a step ahead and is said to have solemnized marriage with one Ranjita @ Kumari Tunni the offer placed before this Court by the petitioner that he was willing and ready to keep his wife with full dignity and honour does not appear to be bona fide. It is evident that it was in fact, meant to mislead this court for obtaining an order in his favour. Furthermore, in his supplementary affidavit dated 06.05.2015, he has categorically stated that he has no knowledge about the card and has denied that he has entered into any marriage with any Kumari Tunni. This is a further attempt by the petitioner to mislead this Court as the report from the Superintendent of police, Kaimur at Bhabua indicates to the contrary.
In view of the facts stated above, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T