Vibhor Ranjan @ Vibhor Ranjan Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89795 of 2024 Arising Out of Case No.-1808 Year-2017 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== Vibhor Ranjan @ Vibhor Ranjan Mishra S/o- Kamta Mishra Resident of Dumara P.S-Kotwa, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Archana Mishra @ Parul Mishra D/o- Shri Shashi Kant Divedi Resident of Bariyariya P.S-Sangrampur, Dist- East Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kundan Rathore@ Kundan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bishweshwar Ram ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-01-2025 Heard Mr. Kundan Rathore @ Kundan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1808/ 2017 dated 26.08.2017 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 323, and 498A of the IPC.

3. The main submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the instant matter is based on the complaint filed by the O.P. No.2 against the petitioner and admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 took place in the year 2010 and before trial court the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89795 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 2/3 complainant did not give any evidence regarding the alleged physical cruelty. It is further submitted that the complainant appeared before the trial court but flatly denied to go with the petitioner and at that time the petitioner proposed to take back the complainant to his house but in view of the blatant refusal by the complainant there is no chance of conciliation in between the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 (the complainant).

4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner.

5. Having considered the above submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and mainly taking into account the fact that marriage between the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 took place in the year 2010 and before the trial court the complainant refused to go with the petitioner as appears from the impugned order, though, there is allegation of cruelty against the petitioner allegedly having been committed by him with the complainant but putting the petitioner behind the bar will reduce the possibility of reunion of both the spouses in near future, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves to the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above, in the event of his arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89795 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 3/3 in connection with Complaint Case No. 1808/ 2017 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-( Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Shailendra Singh, J) BKS/- U T