Mukesh Lal @ Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61992 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2024 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna ====================================================== Mukesh Lal @ Mukesh Kumar Son of Late Surendra Prasad @ Late Surendra Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Salalpur, P.S. - Parwalpur, District - Nalanda Presently residing at At the house of Bal Mukund Kumar, Behind L P Sahi College, P.S. - Ram Krishan Nagar, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Kumari Aajana Rani Wife of Mukesh Lal @ Mukesh Kumar Resident of Village - Salalpur, P.S. - Parwalpur, District - Nalanda Presently residing at - At the house of Madhuri Devi, Road No.1, Sabji Mandi, Postal Park, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Murlidhar Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-01-2025 Earlier, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre, but the dispute between the parties could not be settled through the process of mediation and as such, mediation failed (report at flag 'M').
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 330 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61992 of 2024(3) dt.08-01-2025 2/3
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant/wife of the petitioner namely Kumari Anjana Rani, who was living in a rented accommodation along with her children, separately from the petitioner for last four years. It is alleged that on 12.05.2024 when informant was cooking meat, petitioner entered her house and asked for food as the food was not ready, he caught hold of her head, hair and dipped her in the edible oil in the pan. Upon alarm being raised by her both children, petitioner fled away.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The entire prosecution story is false and concocted. Further submission is that petitioner was married with informant on 12.12.2009 and from their wedlock two sons were born on 25.02.2012 and 07.08.2014 respectively. After some time, informant started quarreling with petitioner and his family members and thereafter, informant living separately from the joint family. Petitioner is still ready to keep informant as his wife with full honour and dignity. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61992 of 2024(3) dt.08-01-2025 3/3 that petitioner is husband of opposite party No. 2 and there is specific allegation against him that he caused burn injury to informant as a result of which informant sustained 22% burn injury on her head and neck (face), front of right chest, right arm, forearm and back of chest. The injury report also corroborates the same. Hence, petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of accusation, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) utkarsh/- U T