Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22849/2017rejected

Pramod Prasad v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-08-22Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22849 of 2017 (3) dt.22-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22849 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -5 Year- 2017 Thana -KORMA District- SEKHPURA ======================================================

1. Pramod Prasad Son of Mahendra Mahto, R/o Koyla, P.S.- Korma, District- Shekhpura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Phool Kumari Devi, W/o Parmod Prasad, D/o Parmanand Prasad @ Paro Ji, R/o Ramkrishn Colony, Bazar Samitee, P.S.- Bahadupur, DistrictPatna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ansarul Haque ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Korma Police Station Case No. 05 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the informant is innocent and has not committed any offence. There is general and omnibus allegation against this petitioner and no specific overt act is attributed to him. The petitioner is still ready to keep the complainant as wife with full honour and dignity but the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22849 of 2017 (3) dt.22-08-2017 complainant herself does not want to reside with the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner happens to be husband of the complainant and he is not ready to keep the complainant as wife. Earlier the matter was referred to mediation centre but the mediation could not be succeeded at the instance of the petitioner, which is evident from the mediation report.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T