Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1941/2023bail rejected

Annu Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2023-07-24Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1941 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-660 Year-2021 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== ANNU PRASAD S/o Dinesh Prasad R/o Village- Mamarakpur, P.S.- Manjhi, Distt- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Jyoti Kumari W/o Annu Prasad, D/io Sheshnath Mahto R/o VillageServadih, P.S.- Garkha, Distt- Saran at Chapra. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Rajani Kumari, Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ramashray Roy, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 494 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Vide order dated 12.07.2023, the petitioner and the informant were directed to remain physically present before this Court on 20.07.2023, but when the matter was taken up on 20.07.2023, the informant was present but the petitioner chose not to appear, as such again the case was fixed for 24.07.2023 with a direction that again both the petitioner and the informant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1941 of 2023(5) dt.24-07-2023 2/2 shall remain physically present in the Court but today again the informant is present but the petitioner chooses not to appear.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite informing the petitioner about the orders of this Court, he willfully defies the same and chooses not to appear.

5. The petitioner and the informant were called before this Court in order to resolve the dispute but it appears that the petitioner is not interested in resolving the dispute rather intends to contest. The allegation against the petitioner is of assaulting the informant for non-fulfilling dowry demand and of having performed second marriage.

6. Since the petitioner is not willing to come before this Court, as such the Court has no option but to reject his application for grant of anticipatory bail, in the nature of allegations alleged in the FIR.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 660 of 2021 is thus rejected

8. The personal appearance of informant is dispensed with.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U T