Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2908/2017rejected

Mannu Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-07-21Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2908 of 2017 (8) dt.21-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2908 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -59 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHILA THANA District- BEGUSARAI ====================================================== Mannu Kumar, Son of Dinesh Chaudhary, resident of Village-Dularpur, Police Station - Teghra, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Kajal Kumari, daughter of late Upendra Chaudhary, resident of VillageThudhi, Police Station-Parbatta, District-Khagaria. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Angad Kunwar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ramchandra Sahani ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner and opposite party no. 2 are present with their counsels. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 59 of 2015, registered under Sections 498(A) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai. The accusation is of torturing the complainantopposite party no. 2 by her husband and in-laws due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and to remove from her matrimonial house.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2908 of 2017 (8) dt.21-07-2017 that in compliance of order dated 21.06.2017, opposite party no. 2 was taken by the petitioner from the High Court while she was stayed at her matrimonial house for 21 days but in the meantime, she was brutally mishandled by the petitioner and other-in-laws, on which, she had no option except to leave the matrimonial house. Thereafter, she left the matrimonial house. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T