Alok Kumar And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13645 of 2014 (4) dt.28-01-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.13645 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -532 Year- 2013 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ======================================================
1. Alok Kumar, Son of Raishesh Narayan Prasad Verma,
2. Raishesh Narayan Prasad Verma, Son of Late Ganesh Prasad, Both residing at 'Bhagwati Enclave' Tedha, Toli, Police Station- Ahgora, P.O. - Ashok Nagar, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyamwada, wife of Alok Kumar and daughter of Sri Diwakar Prasad Verma, at present residing at 'Sukhdeo Niketan', Road No.1, Juran Chapra Maharaji P.S. Brahampura, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Madhuri Lata, Advocate For the State : APP For O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. Sudha Ambastha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 28-01-2015 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Complaint Case No.532 of 2013.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and this is the first complaint of its nature which has been filed in 2013 since petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2 were married as far back as in 2002. It further submitted that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13645 of 2014 (4) dt.28-01-2015 accusations are general and omnibus in nature. As a matter of fact, the petitioner no.1 had earlier been ready to keep his wife with due dignity and honour but it was the opposite party no.2, who did not wish to accompany him to live in Ranchi where he had settled. Even after approaching the Helpline, the opposite party no.2 did not appear whereas the petitioner no.1 appeared and expressed his willingness to resolve his dispute and to keep his wife with due dignity and honour.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 appears and opposes the anticipatory bail petition.
5. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners by order dated 04.08.2014 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur in connection with Complaint Case No.532 of 2013 is hereby confirmed.
(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- U T