Rakesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.49229 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1308 Year- 2013 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ======================================================
1. Rakesh Kumar Son of late Rajendra Das resident of village - Rajipur, P.S. - Rani Talab, District - Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Baby Kumari W/o Sri Rakesh Kumar Village - Rajipur, P.S. - Raniya Talab, District - Patna, At present D/o Shri Hari Prasad, Village - Geyaspur, P.O. - Ahiyapur Maner, P.S. - Maner, District - Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ashlam Ansari For the Complainant : Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-02-2017 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1308(C) of 2013, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he happens to be the husband of the complainant and earlier also the complainant had filed a false case against the petitioner before the Chairman District Legal Services Tribunal however, later on the said case was taken back by her stating that she had filed that case by mistake. It has further been submitted that the petitioner never demanded any dowry and has never tortured the complainant and is still ready to keep the complainant with full honour and dignity,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49229 of 2016 (5) dt.22-02-2017 2/2 however, the complainant is not ready to live with the petitioner. Heard learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail that there is allegation against the petitioner for demand of dowry and on non fulfillment of the said demand, the petitioner used to torture and beat the complainant. Having heard both sides, in view of the fact that there is allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the petitioner, who happens to be the husband, I am not inclined to grant him the privilege of anticipatory bail, it is accordingly rejected. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T