Abhay Kant Choudhary @ Pappu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4974 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -204 Year- 2017 Thana -MAHISHI District- SAHARSA ======================================================

1. Abhay Kant Choudhary @ Pappu S/o Shashi Kant Choudhary, R/o Village- Mahishi, P.S.- Mahishi, District- Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhav Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prem Kr. Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 05-02-2018 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Mahishi P.S. case No. 204 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 494 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The informant alleged that she was married to the petitioner on 01.06.2011 but the petitioner and his family members subjected her to physical and mental torture and drove her out from house after snatching all her belongings. The informant further alleged that her husband, the petitioner, solemnized 2nd marriage with Puja Kumari of village Bangaon. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was forcibly married to the informant but after some

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4974 of 2018 (3) dt.05-02-2018 2/2 time the informant left the house of petitioner and went to her parents' house and even after much persuasion the informant did not come to the house of petitioner and thereafter the petitioner solemnized 2nd marriage.

The learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that petitioner never kept the informant properly and petitioner always subjected the informant to physical and mental torture. The petitioner has already solemnized 2nd marriage. Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that petitioner has solemnized 2nd marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T