← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./63384/2019bail granted

Navin Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2020-02-06Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63384 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1966 Year-2018 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== NAVIN RAM Son of Pritam Ram Resident of Village-Sakriman, P.S-Piyar, District-Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner.

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Nutan Devi Daughter of Shiv Shankar Ram Resident of Village-Kalyanpur Gaura, P.S.-Pusa, District-Samastipur.

... ... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate.

For the State :

Ms. Shaheen Begum, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 06-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with C.R. No.1966 of 2018 registered under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation is of torturing the opposite party no.2 by her husband (petitioner) and her other in-laws for nonfulfillment of the dowry demand and also performing remarriage by her husband (petitioner). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the opposite party no.2 lodged the present case with false allegation due to misunderstanding. The petitioner is still ready

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63384 of 2019(6) dt.06-02-2020 2/2 to keep his wife (opposite party no.2) with full honour and dignity. Further submission is that while the notice, as issued to the opposite party no.2 under ordinary process, has been received by her father and the jointness petition has also been filed in this regard by way of filing supplementary affidavit but the opposite party no.2 has chosen not to appear before this Court.

Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, the provisional anticipatory bail, as granted to the petitioner, above named, vide order dated 21.10.2019 passed by a Bench of this Court, is, hereby, confirmed. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T