IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78944 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA PS District- East Champaran

Dr. Rajeev Kumar Verma @ Rajeev Kumar Verma, aged about 35 years,
Male, son of Dr. Chandra Mohan Kumar Verma, resident of village and P.O.-
Pachpakri, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran.

… … Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ankita Sinha, aged about 28 years (female), D/o Hemant Kumar Sinha,
resident of Mohalla- Chandmari, P.S.- Town, District- East Champaran.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the OP No. 2 : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior

counsel along with Mr. Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State

and Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the opposite

party no. 2-informant.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Motihari Mahila PS Case No. 36 of 2019 dated 29.06.2019,

Act’).

4. The allegation against the petitioner and others is

that in the marriage of the informant with him on 01.05.2015,

cash of rupees five lakhs, fridge and gadget worth rupees two

lakh and also ornaments of gold and silver worth rupees five

lakhs as also clothes worth rupees one lakh was given by the

family of the informant, but when she went to the matrimonial

home then she was tortured and that there was demand of a

four-wheeler and on the informant’s father not being able to

meet the demand, the accused had started mental and physical

torture and also used to give various types of injections and

medicines due to which her general health and mental condition

also deteriorated. It is further stated that faced with the

circumstances, the father of the informant had taken the

informant and the petitioner to Ranchi and the Psychiatrist had

opined that the informant does not suffer from any disease and

should not be given any medication otherwise, it may affect her

brain. It is further alleged that when the informant again went to

the matrimonial home, the same medicines were given to her

and she was tortured in various ways and that the husband of the

sister of the petitioner finding her alone had entered into her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78944 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021
3/7

room and tried to outrage her modesty, but on cry raised had

fled away. Finally, it has been stated that in December, 2018,

after snatching the belongings of the informant worth rupees

five lakhs and mobile phone by the sister of the petitioner, she

was ousted and since then she is living in her parents’ house.

Finally, it has been stated that inspite of several efforts from the

side of the informant’s family, the accused were not ready to

keep her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the informant is not well, both mentally and physically. It was

submitted that she has serious mental issues and that she is not

in a position to enter into conjugal relationship. Learned counsel

submitted that due to such condition and also non-cooperation

from the side of the informant and her family members, the

petitioner has filed Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 35 of 2019

on 19.01.2019 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, East

Champaran at Motihari, for dissolution of marriage. It was

submitted that after notice by publication in the daily newspaper

was made on 29.06.2019, the present case has been instituted

only to harass and extort money from the petitioner’s family.

Learned counsel submitted that there is vague and omnibus

allegation against the petitioner and his family members. It was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78944 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021
4/7

contended that the Courts have now realized that there is misuse

6. Learned APP submitted that the present is not a fit

case for grant of anticipatory bail as the allegations are very

correct of forcibly administering medicines which has adverse

affect, both on the brain as well as the body and the allegations

made appears to be correct without any exaggeration.

7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that

the petitioner and his family members had become greedy upon

receiving good amount during marriage and had started

demanding four wheeler, but the father of the informant not

being in a position could not fulfill the same due to which the

petitioner, who is a MBBS Doctor, knowing fully well the

consequences, had tried to create a situation and make the

informant mentally infirm so as to have a ground to divorce her,

which actually he did and even in the divorce petition, such

ground of mental infirmity has been taken up. Learned counsel

submitted that the allegation of present case being filed as a

counter blast to the divorce case is totally false for the reason

that the paper publication of the notice in the divorce case was

made on 02.08.2019 after it was signed by the Court on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78944 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021
5/7

30.07.2019, whereas, the present has been filed much earlier on

29.06.2019 itself. Learned counsel submitted that the Court

earlier had got an exercise conducted by sending both the parties

to the Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry and Allied Sciences

for getting opinion with regard to the mental condition of the

informant and the report has come that she is mentally fit. Thus,

it was submitted that the entire allegations and the basis of the

divorce case has been falsified. Learned counsel submitted that

the petitioner and his family members have made up their mind

that they would not keep the informant basically because of

their greed for money as otherwise, there is no other

justification for the same.

8. Earlier, the Court on a number of occasions,

basically on the stand by learned counsel for the petitioner for

working out an amicable settlement, had been adjourning the

matter. Finally, the offer made by the petitioner being too low

was not accepted by the informant and the terms for such

settlement from the side of the informant were not accepted by

the petitioner. The Court would record here that basically the

dispute related to the ornaments which had been given by the

side of the informant to the informant, which according to her

remained in her matrimonial home i.e., the house of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78944 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021
6/7

petitioner as she had not brought them back, whereas, the claim

by the petitioner’s side is that she had taken all her ornaments

with her. Here, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, with

whom the father of the petitioner was present, stated that they

have got one gold chain set with them which they were prepared

to return.

9. The Court would indicate that the initial stand on

behalf of the petitioner that all the ornaments of the informant

had been taken away by her falls flat by very admission that the

petitioner’s side has got one gold chain set with them. Further,

if, at all, the petitioner’s side had no business or concern with

the ornaments of the informant, then there was no occasion for

them to come up with the stand that they have one gold chain

set with them since whatever had been kept by the informant in

her room or wherever, the petitioner’s family was not entitled to

take them out so as to aware what was kept, but being aware of

the presence of one gold chain set indicates that all the

ornaments of the informant had not been taken back by her and

the same remained in the matrimonial home.

10. Be that as it may, the Court would not go into that

aspect as the parties are fully aware of the truth as it is within

their personal knowledge. However, the Court would only
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78944 of 2019 dt.09-07-2021
7/7

indicate that whatever has been submitted before the Court and

the materials brought on record as also taking into account the

report of the Psychiatric Institute at Ranchi, it appears that the

informant does not suffer from any mental condition so as to

certify her to be unfit to perform the role of a wife. Moreover,

the allegations made in the FIR, cannot, at this stage, be said to

be exaggerated or unbelievable.

11. Thus, taking over all view in the matter, the Court

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

13. Interim protection given to the petitioner under

order dated 04.12.2019 stands vacated.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR
U
T