Kunal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.966 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2019 Thana- SOHSARAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== KUNAL KUMAR Son of Kameshwar Prasad R/o Mohalla- Mogal Kuan, P.S.- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Moni Kumari D/o Shashi Bhushan Prasad R/o Mohalla- Jalalpur, P.S.- Sohsarai, Distt- Nalanda.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shivendra Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 26-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Sohsarai P.S. Case No.196 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 506, 354B, 384 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the F.I.R., it is stated that the informant met the petitioner in a coaching centre. After sometime, they became friends and started exchanging notes. It is further stated that slowly he started to blackmail her and got her to sign on a number of blank pages. It is further stated that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.966 of 2020(3) dt.26-02-2020 2/2 he threatened and misbehaved with her.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations as levelled in the F.I.R. are false and concocted. A certificate has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the petition, showing that both the petitioner and the informant had married in a temple and that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed by the petitioner in the Court below. A copy of the petition of the suit has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the application. The application for bail has been opposed by learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the State. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation made in the F.I.R., the direct allegation made against this petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and as such the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks.

(Partha Sarthy, J.) amit/- U T