Sujit Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55756 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Buxar ====================================================== Sujit Kumar Singh, Aged about 25 years, Male, S/o Shiv Dayal Singh, R/o village- Nagsar, P.S.- Nagsar, District- Gajipur, (U.P.) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bachan Jee Ojha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nitya Nand Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Buxar (Mahila) P.S. Case No.29 of 2019, registered under Sections 498A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The informant alleged that she was married with the petitioner on 23.04.2017 and went to her matrimonial house but on the next day her husband and other in laws demanded a Scorpio vehicle and Rs.5 lacs and they started subjecting her to all sorts of physical and mental torture. She was driven out from the house on 04.08.2017. Again her husband and other in laws took her to their house after holding Panchayat and assurance

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55756 of 2019(2) dt.06-09-2019 2/3 not to torture her but her husband and others continued to torture her and she was driven out from the house on 28.11.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant firstly picked up quarrel and she left the house without any rhyme and reason. The petitioner filed petition for judicial separation prior to institution of the present FIR but when the informant received notice she filed the present case. Learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that from the next day of marriage, the petitioner being the husband and other in laws started subjecting the victim to all sorts of physical and mental torture and she was never allowed to lead happy conjugal life in her matrimonial house. The petitioner filed petition for judicial separation only to create defence.

From perusal of the records, it appears that the informant, wife of the petitioner, made very specific allegation that from the next day of her marriage with the petitioner, the petitioner and others subjected her to all sorts of torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and she was driven out from her matrimonial house. All efforts were made for reconciliation.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55756 of 2019(2) dt.06-09-2019 3/3 house but again she was subjected to all sorts of torture compelling her to leave her matrimonial house. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

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