Abhimanyu Singh @ Chhote Babu @ Abhimanyu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16214 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -100 Year- 2016 Thana -BELSAND District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Abhimanyu Singh @ Chhote Babu @ Abhimanyu Kumar, son of Sikandar Singh, resident of Village- Dumra, P.S.- Belsand, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Bela Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Belsand P.S. Case No. 100/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that her daughter was married to the petitioner on 29.05.2011. The daughter remained in her sasural and gave birth to a female child, but her husband and other in-laws started subjecting her to different sorts of torture. On 04.12.2016, it is alleged that the petitioner and other family members tied the daughter of the informant with a rope and brutally assaulted her. Again on 09.12.2016, the petitioner and others assaulted the daughter of the informant and she became

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16214 of 2017 (4) dt.04-07-2017 2/2 depressed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured his wife. It is submitted that the petitioner got her treated in mental hospital at Ranchi. The petitioner is not in a position to keep his wife, as she is unable to discharge her day-today concern. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. From perusal of the records, it appears that the informant made allegation that the petitioner subjected his wife to different sorts of torture. The wife gave birth to a female child. The wife of the petitioner is mentally ill even then the petitioner is not ready to keep his wife.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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