Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14289/2018dismissed

Dharmendra Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-03-15Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14289 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -292 Year- 2017 Thana -AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- AURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Ram Varat Prajapatti, R/o Village- Rasulpur, P.S.- Barun District- Aurangabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Dr. Punam Kumari @ Punam Devi W/o Sanjay Kumar D/o Raghu Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Mewal Bigha, Police Line Road Bathan Gaya , P.O.- Chand Chaura, P.S.- Rampur , District- Gaya.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nawal Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in a case instituted for the offence under Sections-341, 323, 420, 494, 498A, 354, 354B, 504 of the IPC.

Allegation against the petitioner is of committing torture upon the victim due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is brother-in-law of the complainant. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to petty family dispute. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14289 of 2018 (2) dt.15-03-2018 petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Naimul Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the Complaint Case and the specific allegation of assault and physical abuse has been made against the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 292 of 2017 is rejected.

Anyhow, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) A.K.V./- U T