The High Court rejected a second prayer for anticipatory bail after earlier rejecting it. The court noted the petitioner's inability to stay together and his recalcitrance despite a divorce decree, finding the prayer rejected on both law and facts.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected on both legal and factual grounds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.53752 of 2018
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2014 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- SARAN
====================================================== 1. Pankaj Kumar, Son of Akhileshwar Kunwar, Resident of VillageKhajuri, P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at present Rampur Noor Nagar, P.S.- Jalalpur, District- Saran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER
2 05-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioner seeks renewal of his prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 11 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 113/301 /307 /322/328/347/349/448/498(A)/149 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section ¾ of the Prevention of Dowry Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the now the decree of divorce is allowed, no cause survives under Sections as alleged in the Complaint Case and, therefore, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of prearrest bail.
The order which was passed earlier on 08.12.2015
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53752 of 2018 (2) dt.05-09-2018
2/2
was passed apparently after the parties had been called to the Chambers and the petitioner as well as the opposite party had been encouraged to stay together and on the said occasion, the petitioner has submitted that he was willing and ready to live with his partner, but during the course of further hearing, the petitioner proved to be recalcitrant and, accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected and the interim benefit extended in his favour was withdrawn. Almost three years have elapsed since the passage of the said order and the petitioner has not surrendered in the Court below. However, he now seeks further indulgence from this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail.
Considering the entire gamut of circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner
Not only on law but also on facts, the second prayer for bail is accordingly rejected.
(Anjana Mishra, J)
Saif/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant a second prayer for anticipatory bail despite the petitioner's recalcitrance and failure to surrender for nearly three years.
Whether the granting of a divorce decree extinguishes the alleged offences under the Dowry Act and IPC for the purpose of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pankaj Kumar
The State of Bihar
Kiran Devi
Anjana Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
