Ramanad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67654 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1387 Year-2017 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== RAMANAD GUPTA Son of Shiv Murat Shah Resident of Village - Akorhi Mela, P.S.- Durgawati, District - Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sunita Devi Wife of Ramanad Gupta Resident of Village - Akorhi Mela, P.S.- Durgawati, District - Kaimur at Bhabua. At present resident of village - Belhari, P.S.- Mohania, District - Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jay Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, APP For the Informant/s :

Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had instructions to make submission that the petitioner in view of the order dated 23.09.2019 in maintenance case no. 01 of 2018, would presently pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the informant within a period of ten days which was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67654 of 2021(6) dt.11-10-2022 2/3 recorded in the order dated 15.09.2022.

Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not in a position to pay the said amount, as he had agreed initially based on which the said submission was made.

Learned counsel for the informant submits that it was nothing but an attempt to mislead the Court so that the petitioner remains protected by the order of the Court during Dushehra Vacation. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that despite the order passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court in maintenance case no. 01 of 2018 was 23.09.2019, still not a single penny till date has been paid and the petitioner being the husband is seeking anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that though in the present case, the consideration and the yardstick for considering his anticipatory bail application would be different but then his conduct is also to be seen that how blatantly he had mocked at the orders of the learned Family Court, whereby maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- was fixed. It is also submitted that conduct of a person is also important, while

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67654 of 2021(6) dt.11-10-2022 3/3 considering his bail application.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Shivam/- U T