Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48885/2014rejected

Lal Jha @ Anand Kumar Jha v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-04-23Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48885 of 2014 (2) dt.23-04-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48885 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -121 Year- 2014 Thana -JALE District- DARBHANGA ======================================================

1. Lal Jha @ Anand Kumar Jha Son of Ugra Nath Jha Resident of Village - Chakauti, P.S. - Nanpur, District - Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Rinku Devi D/o Late Nagendra Jha R/v - Kachhua, P.S. - Jalley, District - Darbhanga.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Indu Kumari Srivastava (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jalley P.S. Case No. 121 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The informant Rinku Devi was married with the petitioner in the year 2007 and thereafter, the petitioner and others started torturing and assaulting her due to non-fulfillment of demand of cash of Rs. 50,000/- and 5 bhar gold as dowry. Further the petitioner also tried to kill her by setting her on fire but in the mean time mother and sister of the victim arrived there, who

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48885 of 2014 (2) dt.23-04-2015 raised alarm and due to assemblage of villagers, she was saved and ultimately, she was ousted from the house. Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner being the husband has filed divorce case and thereafter, this case has been lodged. The informant is not ready to live with the petitioner and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP opposes. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the informant was ready to live with the petitioner but the petitioner has flatly refused to keep the informant without assigning any reason and as such this Court is not persuaded to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T