Jitendra Kumar Pal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61602 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2019 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== JITENDRA KUMAR PAL Son of Gauri Shankar Pal Resident of VillageHarnatha, P.S.- Pakarideyal, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Poonam Devi Daughter of Virendra Raut Resident of Village- Pakadiya, P.S.- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 27-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Trial No.771 of 2019, arising out of Complaint Case No. C-95 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 34 besides other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the Complaint, the petitioner was married to the O.P. No.2 on 31.05.2017. It is stated that dowry was given at the time of marriage but soon thereafter the demand of motorcycle started. There is further narration of assault, torture and demand of Rs. 1 lac in addition to the demand of motorcycle. It is stated that on one occasion,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61602 of 2019(3) dt.27-02-2020 2/2 kerosene oil was poured on the Complainant and the petitioner attempted to burn her. After inquiry, cognizance was taken for the offence under sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the unfortunate husband of the O.P. no.2. There is no specific allegation against any of the accused persons nor there has been any demand of dowry. The O.P. no.2 was pressurizing the petitioner to live in her parents' house as Gharjamai.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the O.P. no.2 that there is direct and specific allegation against this petitioner and this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the petitioner is husband of the complainant and there is direct allegation against him in the Complaint, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and as such the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks.

(Partha Sarthy, J.) amit/- U T