Dismissed

Manikant Poddar @ Manik Poddar v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC15 Jul 2019CR. MISC./77814/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail regarding offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC, the High Court of Patna refused to grant bail. It observed that while the petitioner claimed willingness to keep the complainant, the opposite party disputed this fact. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed. Petitioner permitted to appear with complainant for regular bail.

Manikant Poddar @ Manik Poddar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77814 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-352 Year-2017 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Manikant Poddar @ Manik Poddar, son of Yogi Poddar, Resident of villageBadhauna Brahmotar, Police Station- Vidyapatinagar, Distt.- Samastipru.

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Bihar

¶8

Smt. Deepa Devi, wife of Manikant Poddar @ Manik Poddar D/o Budhan Podar, Resident of village - Harpur Bochaha, Police StationVidiyapatinagar, District- Samastipur., Mob.-7546964556

¶9

... ... Opposite Parties

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

6 15-07-2019 Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 352 of 2017 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Earlier vide order dated 26.6.2019 the petitioner was directed to bring back the complainant from her Maike as there was submission that he was ready to keep her with him.

¶14

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had gone there but opposite party No.2 was not ready to go with the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has submitted that petitioner had not gone to the village of opposite party No.2.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77814 of 2018(6) dt.15-07-2019 2/2

¶16

Heard learned APP also.

¶17

In view of above facts and circumstances, I am not

¶18

inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, it is open to the petitioner to appear in the court below along with the complainant and submit that he is ready to keep her with him with dignity and care while praying for regular bail and order may be passed considering the above.

¶19

With the above observation, this application is dismissed.

¶20

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)

¶21

spal/-

¶22

U T

Manikant Poddar @ Manik Poddar v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikant Poddar @ Manik Poddar v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Islam @ Quazi Md. Islam Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Manjesh Kumar Rai @ Manjesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Shree Ranjan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Anr.

Mustak Ansari Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar