Prince Kumar Gaurav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53163 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Prince Kumar Gaurav, aged about 31 years, Male, Son of Rana Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Resident of Patasia, Vidyapati, Police Station - Muhaddinagar, District-Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P. S. Case No. 94 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504, 506, 498(A), 313, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The informant claims that in March, 2017 while she was minor, she was raped by this petitioner but subsequently, petitioner put vermilion on her forehead and solemnized his marriage and again, petitioner solemnized marriage with her at "Nar-Nari Narayan Seva Sansthan" but subsequently, when petitioner got job, he started demanding dowry and subjected her into cruelty.

However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53163 of 2019(3) dt.16-11-2019 2/2 submits that the petitioner never got married with the informant and prior to institution of this case, the petitioner had given SANHA against the informant and others in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur and in the aforesaid SANHA, he disclosed the entire fact as to how he came in touch with the informant. He further submits that moreover, the petitioner has already filed matrimonial suit for declaring the socalled marriage as null and void.

Although, learned counsel appearing for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of the parties, this anticipatory bail petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest/surrender within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order to the court concerned, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with Mahila P. S. Case No. 94 of 2018, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) Rajeev Kumar/- U T