The Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 379 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, holding he was not inclined to grant relief.
Application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
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.15397 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2017 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE District- Darbhanga
======================================================
PAPPU PANDIT Son of Janki Sharan Pandit, Resident of Village - Pakhauli, P.S.- Jale, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
5 10-11-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint
Case No.560 of 2017 for the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The complainant (wife of the petitioner) alleged that the petitioner subjected her to all sorts of torture due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and the petitioner is not ready to keep her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner solemnized marriage with the complainant without
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15397 of 2020(5) dt.10-11-2020 2/2
taking any dowry but now the complainant is not willing to live with the petitioner, but it appears that the petitioner deserted his wife due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and the petitioner is also an accused in Darbhanga (Mahila) P.S. Case No.41 of 2015 registered under Sections 376, 313 and 34 of the I.P.C. On query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not willing to keep his wife.
Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
Harish/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a complaint case involving offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 379 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pappu Pandit
The State of Bihar
Manju Devi
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
