Saurav Suman v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73940 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2019 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka ====================================================== SAURAV SUMAN Son of Late Samesh Singh Resident of Village - Laugain, P.S.- Sajour, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
Neha Kumari Wife of Saurav Suman, D/O - Pawan Kumar Keshari Resident of Village and P.O. - Punsiya, P.S.- Rajoun, District- Banka ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh Ms. Indira Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 31-01-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Rajoun P.S. Case No. 229 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 342, 323, 354(a), 354(B), 372, 498A, 509 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is still ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 with full honour and dignity. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73940 of 2019(8) dt.31-01-2022 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is direct allegation against him of demand of dowry and torture. Moreover, petitioner being the husband had the responsibility of keeping his wife with full honour and dignity, in which he failed. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of 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