Dharmendra Yadav @ Dharmendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66281 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-379 Year-2022 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya ====================================================== DHARMENDRA YADAV @ DHARMENDRA KUMAR SON OF LATE SHIV YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAULANA CHAK, PS- AMAS, DISTT- GAYA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

PRIYA KUMARI WIFE OF DHARMENDRA YADAV @ DHARMENDRA KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAULANA CHAK, PS- AMAS, DISTT- GAYA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Kunwar Narayan Jamuar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State along with learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.

2. In compliance of the order dated 23.04.2024, the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 are physically present in the Court.

3. The O.P. No. 2, who is present in the Court, submits that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is further submitted that petitioner was earlier implicated in a case of murder in which he is on bail, but then from perusal of Para-3 to the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that the same records that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.

4. On query of the Court from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as to whether

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66281 of 2023(4) dt.29-04-2024 2/2 petitioner is a person with clean antecedent or has criminal antecedent, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inquired from the petitioner and thereafter submitted that petitioner is implicated in a case of murder, but then he is on bail.

5. At this stage, the O.P. No. 2 submits that she along with the child is staying separately from the petitioner for more than one and a half years and in these one and a half years, the petitioner has not paid a single penny to the O.P. No. 2 towards maintenance, as such, one can well imagine the plight of the O.P. No. 2 how she is surviving along with the child in absence of any financial support.

6. Since the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean antecedent and he has not paid even a single penny towards maintenance to the O.P. No. 2 and child, as such, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T