Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56509 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2024 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav, S/O Vinod Yadav, R/O Vill.- Mathlohiyar, P.s.- Harsidhi, District- East Champran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Antima Devi, W/O Mukesh Kumar, D/O Rajendra Yadav, R/O Vill. at present Chhapkahiya, P.S.- Govindganj, Dist.- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Sucheta Yadav, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-12-2025 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Trial No. 1565 of 2025 arising out of Complaint Case No. C244 of 2024 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After some argument learned Advocate for the informant submits that by the order impugned dated 06.06.2025 passed by the learned Session Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, the Court having taken notice of the fact that the case is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, accordingly disposed off the same in the light of the decisions

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56509 of 2025(4) dt.03-12-2025 2/2 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273] and Satyendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [S.L.P. (Cri) No.5191 of 2021]. However, despite the liberty accorded to the petitioner and the matter having been disposed off in the light of the aforenoted case, the petitioner preferred the present anticipatory bail.

4. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already been given a liberty to approach before the jurisdictional court in the light of the decision aforenoted, this Court does not find any reason or occasion to entertain the present application. In view thereof, the present bail application stands disposed off with a liberty to the petitioner to approach before the jurisdictional court in the light of the decisions afore-noted.

(Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U T