Rajendra Chauhan v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38900 of 2014 (2) dt.01-04-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38900 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -202 Year- 2014 Thana -NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE DistrictNAWADA ======================================================

1. Rajendra Chauhan S/o Ram Pyare Chauhan Resident of Village Lakshmi pur, P.S. Sitamarhi, District Nawada.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Pinki Kumari D/o Shree Ramji Chauhan Resident of Village Lakshmipur, P.S. Sitamarhi, District Nawada.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pronati Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 01-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 202 of 2014 in which cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Allegedly, the petitioner was married with the complainant against the wishes of the parents, lastly, the father of the complaint lodged a case bearing Narhat (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case No. 25 of 2013 against the petitioner and his family members and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38900 of 2014 (2) dt.01-04-2015 after recording the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.c. of the victim bail was granted and thereafter, the petitioner and others started demanding Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of dowry and due to non-fulfillment started torturing her in various ways and further assaulted her and ousted her from the matrimonial house after snatching her all belongings.

Submission is of false implication and that no such occurrence has taken place, the complainant is a married lady and she is wife of one Pramod Chauhan and the petitioner is a Railway employee under training and he was never married with the complainant to which the learned APP duly assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes by submitting that in Narhat P.S. Case No. 25 of 2013 the petitioner has not denied the marriage with the complainant.

Considering that the petitioner being husband of the complainant tortured her due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, this Court is not persuaded to grant the privilege of prearrest bail to the petitioner, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T