Pooja Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73943 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4197 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== POOJA BHARTI Wife of Kaushal Kumar Daughter of Sri Ram Nandan Rajak, Resident of Sultanpur, P.S.- Mokama, District - Patna, at present at the house of Sanjay Kumar of West Lohanipur, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Suraj Chaudhary Son of Late Ram Kripal Chaudhary 3.

Shakuntala Devi Wife of Suraj Chaudhary 4.

Lokesh Kumar Son of Suraj Chaudhary All Resident of Sector-10, Faridabad, House No. 627, P.S.- Faridabad, District - Faridabad (Hariyana), Pin- 121006. 5.

Suchita Rani Wife of Ram Bhajan Shafi D/o Suraj Chaudhary, 6.

Ram Bhajan Shafi Son of Not Known Both Resident of Sector-10, Faridabad, House No. 627, P.S.- Faridabad, District - Faridabad (Hariyana), Pin- 121006. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhaskar Shankar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Opposite party No.2-wife of co-accused-Kaushal Kumar had brought Complaint Case No.4197(C) of 2017, a case under Section 498A I.P.C. and other ancillary sections of the Penal Code.

Initially the husband and others were allowed anticipatory bail by the learned court below mainly for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73943 of 2019(2) dt.02-12-2019 2/2 reason that after conciliation, the wife had gone to the matrimonial house. Thereafter, on the allegation that she was again assaulted by the family members bitterly the prayer for bail of husband of the petitioner was cancelled and the learned court below did not interfere with the order granting anticipatory bail to opposite party Nos.2 to 6. Opposite party Nos.2 to 6 are relations of the husband of the petitioner. This application is for cancellation of bail granting to opposite party Nos.2 to 6.

After hearing the parties, I do not find that any exceptional ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail already granted to opposite party nos.2 to 6 is made out. Hence, this application is dismissed as devoid of any merit in connection with Complaint Case No.4197(C) of 2017 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Patna.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- U T