Jai Prakash Sharma Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2024)

Jai Prakash Sharma Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in Complaint Case No. 186C of 2016 (registered for offences under Sections 498(A), 379, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act), should be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

Having regard to the circumstances submitted and left unrebutted by the petitioner's counsel — ouster of opposite party no. 2 from her matrimonial home in 2016, her sustaining herself and the child (aged about eight and a half years) without financial support, non-payment of the monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- directed ex parte by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Supaul in Maintenance Case No. 36 of 2016 despite valid service of notice, and the petitioner's alleged second marriage — the Court was not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 186C of 2016 pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Supaul/Successor Court, and accordingly rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Satyavrat Verma, J) (oral order, 24-07-2024) rejected the anticipatory bail application of Jai Prakash Sharma, who apprehended arrest in Complaint Case No. 186C of 2016 pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Supaul/Successor Court, registered for offences under Sections 498(A), 379, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The opposite party no. 2 (Nilam Kumari) had been ousted from her matrimonial home in 2016 and was maintaining herself and her child (about eight and a half years old) at her parental home without financial support; monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- directed ex parte by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Supaul in Maintenance Case No. 36 of 2016 remained unpaid, the petitioner having not appeared despite valid service of notice; the petitioner was also said to have contracted a second marriage. Counsel for the petitioner could not rebut these submissions; hence the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11840 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2016 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul

====================================================== Jai Prakash Sharma Son of Shanker Sharma Resident of Mohalla- Aadarsh Nagar, Ward No.-02, P.S. and Distt.-Madhepura

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

Nilam Kumari D/O Late Ram Nath Sharma Resident of Mohalla- Aadarsh Nagar, Ward No.-02, P.S. and Distt.-Madhepura

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, A.P.P. ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

3 24-07-2024

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 379, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that opposite party no. 2 was ousted from her matrimonial home in the year 2016 and the opposite party no. 2 along with her child is staying at her parental home. It is further submitted that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Supaul in Maintenance Case No. 36 of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11840 of 2024(3) dt.24-07-2024 2/3

2016 had directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- but the same till date has not been paid. It is next submitted that no doubt, the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Supaul is ex parte but then the court was constrained to pass an ex parte order as the petitioner despite valid service of notice for reasons best known did not appear and contest the case. It is also submitted that one can well imagine the plight of opposite party no. 2 that how she is sustaining herself in absence of any financial support. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 is also facing difficulty in rearing the child who presently is aged about eight and half years. It is next submitted that had the petitioner any intention of maintaining the opposite party no. 2 and the child then definitely he would have paid maintenance amount but then petitioner is enjoying his life with his second wife after performing his second marriage.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

In such circumstances, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 186C of 2016 pending in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11840 of 2024(3) dt.24-07-2024 3/3

the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Supaul/Successor Court.

Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U T