Ravindra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54269 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda ====================================================== RAVINDRA YADAV Son of Daso Yadav Resident of Village- Shekhra, Police Station- Sarmera, Distt. Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Khushbu Devi Wife of Ravindra Yadav D/o Rajo Yadav R/o Mohalla- Raja Kuau, Police Station- Biharsharif, of Distt.- Nalanda. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rabindra Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 06-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects within four weeks of normal court proceedings. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mahila P.S. Case No.117 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner and other in laws are said to have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54269 of 2019(10) dt.06-01-2022 2/2 tortured the victim physically and mentally due to nonfulfillment of demand of additional dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to keep opposite party no.2 with full dignity and honour. It is further submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. It is submitted that opposite party no.2 does not want to live with the petitioner. From perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the petitioner-husband brought opposite party no.2 from her parental home and assaulted her. It also appears from the impugned order that the petitioner did not appear before the learned court below to reconcile the matter.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T