Pankaj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.61760 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -131 Year- 2011 Thana -MANJHI District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Pankaj Kumar Singh S/o Late Ramadhar Singh, R/o Vill.- Durgapur, P.S.- Manjhi, District- Saran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-10-2018 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Manjhi P.S.Case no.131 of 2011 dated 16.9.2011 for the offences under Sections 498(A)/341,323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Allegation against the petitioner is of demand of dowry and torture to his wife. It appears that earlier the petitoner was granted provisional bail vide order dated 10.1.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No.45405 of 2012 on condition that he will keep his wife with full dignity and honour and later on his bail bonds were cancelled by the learned lower court against which he preferred application before this Court, which was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court, vide order dated 5.3.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No.25078 of 2013.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.61760 of 2018 (2) dt.11-10-2018 2/2 Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is a government servant and he is in custody for two months.

Heard learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant. They have opposed the prayer for bail stating that in spite of undertaking that he will keep his wife with full dignity and honour, he has fled away from the court below itself and thereafter the bailable and non-bailable warrant were issued and he was declared absconder and thereafter he has appeared after five year. It is also submitted that there is maintenance case and in spite of the order of interim maintenance, he is not paying the maintenance amount.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above as well as the conduct of the petitioner who is government employee, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U