Chandeshwari Kamat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70030 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-362 Year-2020 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== CHANDESHWARI KAMAT S/o Maheshwar Prasad Kamat Resident of Nalanda Colony, Ramchandra Pur, Biharsharif, Nalanda tenant in the house of informant Sunila Devi, P.S.- Laheri, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar and another.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-01-2023 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner apprehends her/his arrest in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No. 362 of 2020 registered for offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 354, 307, 379, 406, 504, 506, 448, 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant Sunila Devi mentioned in her written report that the petitioner was Sub-Inspector, had taken her premises on rent and when she demanded dues of rent and electricity bill, he threatened her to kill. At the complaint of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70030 of 2021(6) dt.16-01-2023 2/2 informant, the Superintendent of Police started enquiry, which infuriated the petitioner and he and his family members badly assaulted the informant and abused her in filthy words. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner went to his tenanted house in order to vacate the house, but the informant did not allow to vacate the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant has denied the said fact and has submitted that the informant is a lady. The petitioner has occupied her premises and residing in Patna. He is neither paying the rent nor vacating the premises.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T