The Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the petitioner's attitude made restoring conjugal life impossible, finding no merit in granting bail despite an agreement to stay with the wife.
Application for grant of anticipatory bail 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.82035 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Harshvardhan Jha, son of Kashikant Jha Resident of Village - Ladaur, P.S.Gaighat, Distt - Muzaffarpur. At present Resident of Mumbai Rajendra Bhawan II Floor Near Mahadev Mandir, Pathraili Raod, P.S.- Thane Mumbai, Distt - Thane (Maharashtra) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Anand For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arbind Kumar Pandey App ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2020
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.
On 11.12.2019 Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. advocate
persuaded the Court that his client is ready to enter into understanding with the opposite party and on his submission, which finds reflection in the order dated 11.12.2019, the Court passed order granting indulgence as to no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Trial No. 3674 of 2019 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 15 of 2019 pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga.
Today, the petitioner and the opposite party are present in the court. The opposite party is ready to stay with the petitioner but the petitioner is not inclined to keep the opposite party. There is no dispute that the petitioner is husband of the informant-opposite party no.2, para-6 of the petition in most
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82035 of 2019(3) dt.16-01-2020 2/2
unequivocal terms admits the position that the petitioner is husband of the informant.
After solemnization of marriage, it is the allegation of the informant that she was driven out from her matrimonial house for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and she was meted with cruelty.
The Court on the request of the learned senior counsel granted indulgence with a view to restore normal conjugal life between the husband and the wife but the attitude adopted by the husband renders the normal conjugal life impossible and under the aforesaid circumstances the Court is left with no option but to reject the application for grant of anticipatory bail.
The petition for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected as the Court does not find any merit in the instant case for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under section 323/498(A) 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner.
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)
Ravi/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case involving allegations of dowry demand and cruelty.
Whether the petitioner's attitude towards his wife justifies rejection of anticipatory bail.
Whether the allegations under Section 323/498A, 504/506/34 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act require rejection of anticipatory bail application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harshvardhan Jha
The State of Bihar
Anil Kumar Upadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
