Bikram Kumar Singh @ Bikram Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70337 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2019 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai ====================================================== BIKRAM KUMAR SINGH @ BIKRAM KUMAR Son of Umesh singh Resident of Village - Madhurapur, Baghmara Tola, Barauni-02, P.S.- Teghra, Distt.- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.

Tuna Kumari W/o Bikram Kumar Singh @ Bikram Kumar , D/o Mahendra Singh Resident of Village - Ratauli, P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- Begusarai ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 15-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, when called upon to do so by the office. The petitioner is/are apprehending his/their arrest in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No. 47 of 2019 for the offence registered under Sections 498(A), 494 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is a case of maltreatment, harassment and cruelty against the wife of the petitioner due to non-fulfillment of dowry.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70337 of 2019(6) dt.15-12-2021 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in connection with the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to keep his wife with full dignity and honour. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned counsel for the State resists the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has solemnized second marriage, which is not denied by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has a moral responsibility to keep his wife with full dignity and honour. She was deserted by his husband and not maintain her properly. As such, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Jagdish/- U T