Saurabh Kumar Goswami v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54362 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1105 Year-2021 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== SAURABH KUMAR GOSWAMI Son of Birendra Kumar Goswami Resident of Safiganj, Gaushala Nala Road, P.S.- Jugsalai, District - Jamshedpur (Jharkhand).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Jagriti Kumari Wife of Saurabh Kumar Goswami Resident of Safiganj, Gaushala Nala Road, P.S.- Jugsalai, District - Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) At present - Sarai, Fakrabad, P.S.- Kudra, Distt.- Bhabhua, Kaimur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ratnakar Pandey,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Khurshid Anwar,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 31-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1105 of 2021 for the offence registered under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per the complaint petition lodged by the complainant, the marriage was solemnized in 2020 and she started living with her in-laws house but was subjected to cruelty as the accused persons wanted a four wheeler. The further allegation is that the accused persons used

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54362 of 2022(3) dt.31-01-2023 2/2 to torture her as she failed to bring enough dowry. Her parents and uncle tried their level best to get the matter compromised but in the mid 2021, she was forced out of house and accordingly, the complaint was lodged.

On the last occasion, this Court tried to persuade the couple to come to a negotiating table but it seems that divide cannot be filled.

Considering the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner, so far as the anticipatory bail is concerned, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to extend the same, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/Neha/- U T