Dhananjay Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54382 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -111 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Dhananjay Ram S/o Late Krishn Ram, Resident of Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Noor Sarai, District- Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sunita Devi W/O Dhananjay Ram D/O Lal Bahadur Ram, resident of Village- Singhuli, P.S. Bena, District- Nalanda. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Raj, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ataur Rahman, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 12-04-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the Informant.

In this application for anticipatory bail the petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 0111of 2016/ G.R. No. 3087 of 2016 for the offences punishable under sections 498 A/34/ 323/ 504 of the I.P.C. Sunita Devi, the informant, was married to the petitioner in the year 2006 and out of the wedlock there is a daughter aged four years and thereafter the husband (petitioner) and other in-laws started demanding cash of Rs. 50,000/- by way of dowry and due to non fulfillment of demand abused and assaulted her and further ousted her from the in-laws house.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54382 of 2016 (6) dt.12-04-2017 2/2 Submission is of false implication and that wife of the petitioner does not want to live in the in-laws house, she always quarreled, her behaviour is not good, the petitioner has lodged divorce case, i.e. Matrimonial Case No. 195 of 2012 and then she has lodged this false case, in the FIR there is nothing but general allegation and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is the husband and he has assaulted and tortured the informant for non fulfillment of demand of dowry.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to him and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with the aforementioned case pending in the court of C.J.M. Nalanda. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T