Sharwan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81812 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1050 Year-2017 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE District- Nawada ====================================================== SHARWAN YADAV Son of Late Chhote @ Chhote Yadav Resident of Village - Regniya Bigha, P.S.- Giriyak, Distt.- Nalanda at Biharsharif. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Rubi Kumari D/o Shiv Yadav Resident of Village - Lohani Bigha, P.S.- Nawada, Distt.- Nawada.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 11-12-2019 As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to correct the provision of law on the first page of the petition in course of the day.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1050 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As per allegation in the complaint, it is stated that accused persons including the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the complainant, tortured and assaulted her and also made demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of dowry. It is further stated that petitioner has illicit relation with his Bhabhi

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81812 of 2019(2) dt.11-12-2019 2/2 (brother's wife).

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that allegations in the complaint are false and concocted and have been made only to give it a serious look. The petitioner is a poor person, who earns his living by driving vehicle and supports his widow mother and other family members of his family. It is stated that petitioner is in custody since 18.09.2019 and has no criminal antecedent.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that attempts of settlement/ counselling had taken place between the petitioner and complainant on earlier occasion but the same has failed. As per the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge 8th, Nawada, bail petition of the petitioner was rejected on 14.10.2019 and it was observed therein that it was the petitioner, who is not ready to keep his wife. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and his application for bail is rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail on completing six months in custody. (Partha Sarthy, J) sushma/- U