Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17679/2018dismissed

Nawal Kishore Dubey v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-03-29Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17679 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-396 Year-2014 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== Nawal Kishore Dubey, Son of Late Radha Dubey, Resident of VillageShivrajpur, Police Station- Nautan, District- Bettiah (West Champaran). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sunita Tiwari, Daughter of Sant Tiwari, Resident of Village- Par Nawada, Police Station- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. RAJESH KUMAR ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 493, 498A, 366, 375, 486, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is of committing torture upon the victim due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. There is further allegation of allurement by the petitioner.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17679 of 2018(2) dt.29-03-2018 2/2 petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Except for being a second husband of the victim, there is no other substantive evidence to implicate the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. On a false assurance, he had taken the victim to Ludhiana where the victim was compelled for flesh trade by the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer is rejected. (Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T