Lalit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66528 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-716 Year-2018 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul ====================================================== Lalit Kumar Son Of Dev Narayan Barniat Resident Of Village - Bela @ Jay Nagar Bela, P.S.- Jay Nagar, Distt.- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Archana Kumari W/o Lalit Kumar Resident of Village - Bela @ Jay Nagar Bela, P.s.- Jay Nagar, Distt.- Madhubani. At Present D/o Arun Bahar Khair, Resident of Village - Chatapur, P.s.- Chatapur, Distt.- Supaul. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP For the Complainant :

Mr. Chandra Bushan Das, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 28-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 314, 315, 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and later on cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, it is a case of cruelty at the hands of the petitioner due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand of Rs.1,00,000/-.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66528 of 2021(5) dt.28-11-2022 2/2 further submits that petitioner has clean antecedent. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioner was already married with one Smt. Tanuja Kaul as appears from para no.6 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary proof is also available at Annexure-3 of the present petition, showing that the petitioner was the husband of another lady, namely, Smt. Tanuja Kaul before the marriage with the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioner fraudulently giving a false statement get solemnized marriage with the Opposite Party No.2. This conduct of the petitioner would come within the purview of cruelty.

After considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T