Dinesh Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.65066 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2013 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== Dinesh Pandey, Son of Late Indradeo Pandey, Resident of VillagePadamawat, Police Station and District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 09-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 323, 498A, 304B, 201, 504, 364 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 272 of 2013.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and Complaint Case No. 1315C of 2013 was filed by the complainant after an inordinate delay of about nine days on 30.08.2013 even though information regarding disappearance of the complainant's daughter was received on 21.08.2013. As a matter of fact, on 23.08.2013 the petitioner's mother had lodged an F.I.R. in Jamui P.S. Case No. 243 of 2013 alleging that her daughter-in-law (petitioner's wife) had been kidnapped as she

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.65066 of 2018(3) dt.09-01-2019 2/2 had gone missing. It is submitted that the petitioner's wife had fled away with one Kunal Pandey. It is submitted that co-accused members of the petitioner's family have been granted bail by this Court. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Having regard to the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, the petitioner being the husband of the deceased as well as the inordinate delay in approaching this Court in the year 2018 in respect of the complaint filed as far back as in the year, 2013, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as the petitioner has failed to show the immediate apprehension of arrest. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender and move for regular bail before the learned Court below which may be considered on its own merit. (Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T