Amit Mishra @ Amit Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.351 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-717 Year-2018 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Jehanabad ====================================================== AMIT MISHRA @ AMIT KUMAR MISHRA S/o Brijkishore Mishra R/o Shiv Shankar Nagar, P.O.- Kusunda, P.S.- Putki, Distt- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
Shweta Mishra @ Putul Wife of Amit Mishra @ Amit Kumar Mishra Village-Solhanda, P.S-Makhdumpur, District-Jahanabad, Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shiv Sager Sharma, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 07-12-2021 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 717 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case in order to harass him and extort money from him. The allegation of demand of dowry is absolutely false and baseless. Petitioner has also filed a petition for restitution of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.351 of 2020(6) dt.07-12-2021 2/2 conjugal rights. Petitioner has clean antecedent. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State 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. Moreover, petitioner being the husband had the responsibility of keeping his wife with full honour and dignity, in which he failed. He, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory 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 anticiaptory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T