Vijay Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4109 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33901 of 2020
          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2015 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
     ======================================================

Vijay Kumar Yadav, aged about 27 years, Male, Son of Mahendra Ray Resident of Mahamadpur Borhan, P.O.- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Kamini Singh, aged about 25 years, Female, Daughter of Sri Naval Kishore Singh Resident of Thatiya, P.O.- Jasauli, P.S.- Kathaiya, District- Muzaffarpur

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s             :       Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No. 1, Advocate
     For the State                    :       Ms. Renu Kumari, APP
     For the Informant                :       Mr. Priyesh Kumar, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 16-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No.1, learned counsel

for the petitioner; Ms. Renu Kumari, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State

and Mr. Priyesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party

no. 2.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection

with Paroo PS Case No. 287 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015,

instituted under Sections 493/376/341/323/504/506/34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33901 of 2020 dt.16-08-2021

married the opposite party no. 2 in a temple on 06.04.2014 and

had kept the opposite party no. 2 at a rented place and they lived

together as husband and wife and thereafter, on 26.04.2014, the

petitioner went for training in the Army but kept the informant

in a room at Muzaffarpur. Thereafter, it is alleged that the

petitioner returned and kept the informant at a hotel at Hajipur

and then went to Ahmadnagar in Maharashtra for training in the

Army and the informant became pregnant. Further, it is stated

that the petitioner kept her in hotel and came from time to time

and on 31.07.2015 had called her to his house and she was

assaulted by the accused persons and driven out and also

threatened. However, on 20.08.2015 she was called by the

petitioner and kept in a rented room at Hajipur and used to send

maintenance money to her but later stopped giving any money

and also did not talk on phone.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

he is in the Army and, thus, has to keep going to his place of

posting and that the allegations made are not correct. It was

submitted that he is ready to keep the informant and the child

with him with full dignity, honour and security.

6. On 13.07.2021, in view of the statement made by

the opposite party no. 2 in her counter affidavit that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33901 of 2020 dt.16-08-2021

petitioner had married another girl, namely, Arti Kumari @

Baby, the Court had asked learned APP to obtain the legible

photocopy of the entire case diary of the present case as well as

a detailed report with regard to whether the petitioner had

married the other lady. The same has been submitted by the

Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur.

7. When the Court asked learned counsel for the

petitioner as to how on 13.07.2021, he had taken a stand that the

allegation of having performed second marriage is incorrect and

it is only the suspicion of the opposite party no. 2, as has been

recorded at paragraph no. 8 of the order dated 13.07.2021, he

submitted that such stand was as per his instructions.

8. Learned APP, placing the report of the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, stated that the enquiry

has revealed that the petitioner has married the said lady on

15.07.2016 and there is also a child born out of the wedlock.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

no offence is made out under Section 376 of the Indian Penal

Code as the parties were married to each other. Further, he

reiterated that the petitioner was ready to keep the opposite party

no. 2 with him.

10. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33901 of 2020 dt.16-08-2021

witnesses have supported the fact of marriage of the petitioner

with opposite party no. 2 and in fact one of the witnesses on

17.12.2015 had stated that the parents of the petitioner had at

that time taken a stand that the opposite party no. 2 had never

been brought by their son to the matrimonial home, but if the

same was correct, they would not have any objection to

accepting the opposite party no. 2 as the wife of their son.

11. On this, when the Court asked learned counsel

for the petitioner as to under what circumstances, the petitioner

married another girl on 15.07.2016, learned counsel for the

petitioner had no answer.

12. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2

submitted that she has also been blessed with a child and though

the petitioner used to send money earlier, but now no

maintenance is being given to her due to which she is in dire

financial conditions and is unable to manage herself as well as

the child, having been deserted by the petitioner.

13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court finds that from the conduct of the petitioner and the

materials which have come during investigation as well as the

report from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33901 of 2020 dt.16-08-2021

the conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence. The

fact of having performed marriage with the opposite party no. 2

has been found correct as also birth of a child from her and

thereafter again the petitioner having married speaks volumes.

Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that

after sending money to the opposite party no. 2 for herself and

the child, the petitioner has stopped doing so. The Court finds

his stand that he is ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 with

him to be a hollow one as there cannot be two wives living in

the same household and further the legality of marriage of the

petitioner with the other lady is under question.

14. Thus, taking an overall view in the matter, the

Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

16. Interim protection granted to the petitioner under

order dated 16.03.2021, stands vacated.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T