Parveen Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12543 of 2015 (2) dt.07-05-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12543 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1133 Year- 2013 Thana -GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Parveen Kumar Son of K.K. Malakar @ K.K. Vashkaran, Resident of Mohalla- Quarter No. 1, Magadh Medical College, P.s. Magadh Medical College, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Priyanka Devi, Daughter of Rajendra Chaudhary, Resident of village/Mohalla- Abdulpur, Near Devi Mandir, Rafiganj, Renter of Judagir Barahi Mistry P.O. Rafiganj, P.S. Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 07-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1133 of 2013 in which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner happens to be husband of the complainant and it appears from perusal of the impugned order of learned Sessions Judge that he threatened the learned counsel of the complainant in course of hearing.

The above stated conduct and behaviour of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12543 of 2015 (2) dt.07-05-2015 petitioner reflect that he is so desperate that he dared to threaten the learned counsel of the complainant in presence of the Presiding Officer and when the behaviour of the petitioner towards the learned counsel of the complainant is of such nature, it can easily be presumed about the behaviour of the petitioner towards the complainant.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1133 of 2013 pending in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya stands rejected.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U T