Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6171 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -478 Year- 2013 Thana -KANTI THARMAL POWER DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Singh, son of Babulalji Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Razi Haidar Compound, P.S.- Mithanpura, DistrictMuzaffarpur, at present resident of Village- Room No.19, 3rd Floor, Surya Bhawan, P.S.- Nala Sopara (East), District- Thane, Mumbai. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Nisha Kumari, Daughter of Late Lalbabu Sah and wife of Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Pandit Pakri, P.O.+P.S.- Subhankarpur Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate.

Ms. Kumari Vandana, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 01-03-2017 Heard Mr. Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kanti P.S. Case No. 478 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Shri Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 06.08.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20237 of 2014, but the petitioner could not get

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6171 of 2017 (2) dt.01-03-2017 2/2 knowledge about rejection of his anticipatory bail petition. Now the wife of the petitioner is already divorced and she is getting maintenance regularly.

It appears that the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 06.08.2014 and he evaded his appearance for more than 21⁄2 years with all impunity and when the wife was divorced, the petitioner again filed this petition that the wife is getting maintenance regularly. It also appears that the petitioner with all impunity did not appear in court for the reasons best known to him.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I do not find any reason to reconsider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T