The Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail in a case involving dowry and torture allegations. The Court, noting that the dispute could not be resolved amicably, observed direct allegations of demand and torture, and decided against granting bail.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is 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.14542 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jamui
======================================================
UMESH YADAV Son of Thakuri Yadav Resident of Village - Daulatpur, P.S.Jamui, Dist. Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER
5 16-05-2023
Perused the Mediator’s Report dated 27.02.2023
kept at Flag ‘Q’ which reveals that the dispute between the parties could not be resolved amicably.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 49 of 2021 registered under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Cod and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14542 of 2022(5) dt.16-05-2023 2/2
and the informant opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that there is direct allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the opposite parties, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
shailendra/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of dowry demand and torture under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Whether the dispute between the parties could be resolved amicably as per the Mediator's Report.
Umesh Yadav
The State of Bihar
Arvind Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
