Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14055/2017rejected

Vijay Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-30Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14055 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -347 Year- 2016 Thana -WAJIRGANJ District- GAYA ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Sinha Son of Birendra Kumar Sinha, Resident of MohallaPant Nagar, Vishnupad, P.S.- Vishnupad, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 347 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The informant wife of the petitioner alleged that she was married to the petitioner but her husband and other family members began to torture her due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On 15.06.2014 the informant was driven out from the house. She further alleged that she gave birth to a male child on 07.05.2015 but the petitioner subjected her to physical and mental torture.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14055 of 2017 (3) dt.30-06-2017 2/2 husband and wife appeared before learned Sessions Judge, Gaya but the wife did not agree to live with the petitioner and she made allegation that the petitioner has solemnized third marriage. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not solemnized any marriage.

Learned counsel for the informant submits that the first wife of the petitioner died thereafter, the petitioner solemnized marriage with the informant and the petitioner again solemnized third marriage.

Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of allegations made against the petitioner and there is allegation that the petitioner solemnized third marriage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T