Patna High CourtCR. MISC./79951/2023bail rejected

Mayank Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-18Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79951 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-484 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== MAYANK KUMAR Son of Jay Prakash Singh @ Guru Jee RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADARPUR PS PUNPUN DIST PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Komal Devi W/o Mayank Kumar, D/o Ashok Singh R/o vill - Baraipur, P.O. - Barah, P.s. - Punpun, Distt. - patna at present address R/o vill - Adalhatu, Morabad, Neada Indian Public School, Nayak Toli, P.s. - Bariyatu, Ranchi (Jharkhand), Pin 834008 ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sheo Nandan Pandit, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 18-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 484(c ) of 2022 registered under Sections 323, 504 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 17.11.2022 by the Complainant, Komal Devi.

3. On 28.03.2024 both the petitioner as well as the Complainant, Komal Devi were present and with their consent the following order was passed:

"Heard the parties.

2. Pursuant to the last order, the couple is present in the Court.

3. As a token of gesture, on the instruction of the husband, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a new mobile phone will be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79951 of 2023(5) dt.18-04-2024 2/2 made available to the lady which unfortunately got broken, by the next date of hearing. They further want some more time to decide whether they want to stay together or not.

4. In that background, this Court again expects positivity on the part of the couple as both are educated, the lady being an M.A. in accounts.

5. List this case on 18.04.2024 as a 'Tied Up' matter at 4:00 pm when the couple shall remain present in the Court."

4. Today, though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mobile has not been provided, the petitioner is present in the Court and has chosen to remain silent on all the charges that was/were made.

5. In that background and taking into account the allegation that has come against him of throwing the girl out of the house after the demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a four wheeler could not be met with the complainant/family members, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to grant any relief to the petitioner.

6. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/- U T