Kumar Abhishek v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56496 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2021 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== KUMAR ABHISHEK SON OF ARVIND KUMAR SINHA @ ARVIND SINHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SITA BHAWAN, HARIHAR COLONY, MANGAL BAZAR, PS- HAZARIBAGH SADAR, DISTT- HAZARIBAGH, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT FLAT NO. A 302, HORIZONS SOCIETY, DATTA MANDIR, ROAD, SHANKAR KALAT NAGAR, PS- WAKAD, DISTT- PUNE ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

RICHA ANAND WIFE OF KUMAR ABHISHEK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAGADH COLONY, ROAD NO. 10, PS- MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE, DIST- GAYA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tabish Sharfuddin, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP.

Mr. Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 15-09-2023 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 406, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Petitioner, who is husband of complainant, is said to have tortured upon her physically and mentally and also threatened her to leave his house otherwise she would be killed. Thus, finally complainant returned her father's house on 10.03.2020.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56496 of 2023(3) dt.15-09-2023 2/2 that the petitioner is an innocent person and has committed no offence. Petitioner has neither made any dowry demand nor drove her out of her matrimonial home nor tormented her over the demand of dowry. The complainant has already filed a Divorce Suit vide M.T.S. No. 92 of 2022 for legal separation against her husband before Family Court at Gaya. It is further submitted that petitioner is not ready to keep the complainant with him with full honour and dignity. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case as well as the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not ready to keep his wife with him, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T