Bibhesh Kumar @ Vibhesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65316 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul ====================================================== BIBHESH KUMAR @ VIBHESH KUMAR S/O MAHENDRA MUKHIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KORIAPATTI, WARD NO.-10, P.S- JADIA, DISTT.- SUPAUL.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

BABLI KUMARI W/O BIBHESH KUMAR @ VIBHESH KUMAR, D/O UMESH MUKHIYA R/O VILLAGE- MANGANJ PURVA, WARD NO. 02, P.S- JADIA, DISTT.- SUPAUL.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Murari Narain Chaudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-09-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 357C of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 341, 323/34 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, being husband, has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant. It is further submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65316 of 2023(8) dt.03-09-2024 2/3 petitioner is always willing to keep the O.P. No. 2 with honour and dignity along with the children, but then for reasons best known, the O.P. No. 2 never intends to join the petitioner as wife.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 submits that one can well imagine the plight of the O.P. No. 2 that how she is sustaining herself along with two children in absence of any financial support from the petitioner since 18.04.2022. It is also submitted that though a submission has been made that petitioner intends to keep the O.P. No. 2 with honour and dignity, but then it is submitted that if the petitioner really intended to keep the O.P. No. 2 and the children with honour and dignity, he would have given some financial support at least for the children, but then the financial support never came, but since his anticipatory bail is being taken up for consideration, as such, a bald plea has been raised that petitioner is always willing to keep the O.P. No. 2 with honour and dignity.

It is also submitted that petitioner is a contract labourers, he provides labourers to different States and earns commission, but then is not willing to maintain the O.P. No. 2 and the children. It is also submitted that for bare minimum survival, at least Rs. 5,000/- is required per month for survival of the O.P. No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65316 of 2023(8) dt.03-09-2024 3/3 her two children, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is not in a position to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 and the children.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T