Pawan Kumar @ Dabbu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73181 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jehanabad ====================================================== PAWAN KUMAR @ DABBU Son of Satyendra Kumar (Sahdeo) Resident of Village - Betauli, P.S.- Hulasganj, Dist.- Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Neha Kumari D/o Sri Satish Prasad Resident of Village - Utimpur, P.S.- Hulasganj, Dist.- Jehanabad.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vipin Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP Mr. Sumeet Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 26-11-2021 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Jehanabad (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 498A, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation of torture and demand of money is absolutely false. He submits that petitioner is now ready to keep the informant. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73181 of 2019(6) dt.26-11-2021 2/2 the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report with direct allegation of torture and demand of money. Moreover, petitioner being the husband had the responsibility of keeping the informant with full honour and dignity, in which he failed. He, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T