SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abhishek Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 16 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 42389 of 2019
Arising Out of Complaint Case No.-697 (C)Year-2018 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT
CASE District- Munger

Abhishek Kumar, aged about 32 years, Male, Son of Chandramani Choudhary
Resident of Mohalla – Madhopur, P.S.- Kotwali, District – Munger.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Anamika Kumari, aged about 30 years, Female, Daughter of Sri Shambhu
Nath Singh, Resident of Railway Colony, Rampur, P.S.- Jamalpur, District –
Munger.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. M. S. Rahman, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-11-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for

the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Complaint Case No. 697(C) of 2018 dated 21.07.2018 instituted

under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner, who is the husband of the opposite

party no. 2, is accused of cruelty and demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

matter be sent to Mediation. It was submitted that there if no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42389 of 2019 dt.16-11-2019
2/2

specific allegation to indicate offence under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned APP and learned counsel for the opposite

party no. 2 submitted that chance of reconciliation has failed

because the petitioner under misrepresentation, after obtaining

anticipatory bail for his parents, has absolutely not taken any steps

for reconciliation and has denied taking the opposite party no. 2 to

the matrimonial home. It was submitted that such conduct of not

taking the wife to the matrimonial home or even accepting her, is

nothing short of cruelty, which is writ large from the circumstances

of the case.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail to the

petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8. The interim protection granted to the petitioner under

order dated 09.07.2019, stands withdrawn.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Anand Kr.

AFR/NAFR
U
T

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation