Sharwan Sahani v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.68273 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1858 Year-2016 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== Sharwan Sahani, Son of Late Kangal Shani, Resident of VillageLohiyanmati, P.S.- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Nirmala Devi, W/o Sharwan Sahani, D/o Mohan Sahani, at present Nakchhed Tola Dharmsamaj Chock, Motihari, P.S.- Motihari, District- East Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sri Bharat Bhushan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 14-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1858 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 498A, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/ 4 of the D.P. Act.
In the application for grant of anticipatory bail the petitioner has stated the following facts in paragraph-7 to 9 which is quoted below:- "That the complaint has been living herself separately with her mother since long that and even after hectic approaches of the petitioner and her father. The complainant did not become
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.68273 of 2018(2) dt.14-12-2018 2/2 ready to come with the petitioner then co-villager quange his second marriage with one Usha Devi according to Hindu ritual and custom 16 years before and since then the petitioner has been living his satisfactory conjugal life with is second wife Usha Devi.
That the petitioner is never demand any types of demand of dowry of the complaint.
That after lapse of 20 years the complainant is filed the case against the petitioner with tatally false." Considering the aforesaid statement of the petitioner which is quoted above, the Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, accordingly it is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) T.Kr./- U T