Raushan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 242 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22137 of 2020
          Arising Out of Complaint Case No.-1533 (C) Year-2017 Thana- MUZFFARPUR
                           COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur
     ======================================================

Raushan Kumar, Age- 28, Male, Son of Pramod Rai, Resident of - Borbara, P.S.- Bochha, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Inku Kumari Wife of Raushan Kumar, Resident of Village- Borbara, P.S.-

Bochha, District- Muzaffarpur, presently Residing at C/o Ram Avtar Rai, Resident of Bishambharpur Patti, PS Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar

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

     For the Petitioner/s           :       Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
     For the State                  :       Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP
     For the Opposite Party No. 2   :       Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-01-2021

Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

the petitioner; Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, learned Additional Public

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

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party

no. 2.

2. Pursuant to order dated 21.12.2020, the petitioner as

also the opposite party no. 2 are present. The opposite party no. 2

has also brought her minor daughter with her.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Complaint Case No. 1533(C) of 2017 dated 04.07.2017, instituted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22137 of 2020 dt.21-01-2021

under Sections 498A, 307, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that soon after

marriage, he and his family members started torturing her for

dowry and the daughter was born in the house of the parents of

opposite party no. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is

a matrimonial matter and the petitioner is the husband. It was

submitted that due to false accusation, the father and mother of the

petitioner were arrested and had to obtain bail. Learned counsel

submitted that the allegations are incorrect and for three years no

complaint was made before any authority and the marriage having

taken place in the year 2014, the complaint has been filed in the

year 2017. It was further submitted that the petitioner was

confined for 15 days in the house of the opposite party no. 2 and

was also maltreated and was given food only once a day.

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner being the

husband having turned away the opposite party no. 2 despite being

pregnant and thereafter not even bothering to take care of them or

to get the matter settled, clearly indicates that his conduct is not

bona fide.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22137 of 2020 dt.21-01-2021

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2

submitted that she was tortured from day one in the matrimonial

home by all the family members of the petitioner and further that

despite being pregnant, when no care was being taken, she had to

come back to her parents place where she gave birth to a female

child and despite that the petitioner has not bothered to take care

of her or the child and that is why, the daughter also does not

recognize the father as no effort has been made on his part to

develop any contact, either with her or with the daughter. Learned

counsel submitted that the fact that the petitioner has alleged that

he was tortured in the parents' home of the opposite party no.2,

though totally incorrect, is also a clear indication that there must

have been very genuine and strong grievance against the

petitioner, due to which the family members of the girl would

behaved so badly with the husband of the daughter of the house as

in society, the son-in-law is given royal treatment, especially in

the house of the bride. Further, it was submitted that had the

opposite party no. 2 and her family members behaved so cruelly

with him and had assaulted him and tied him up for 15 days, it is

surprising that the petitioner had not made complaint anywhere

before any authority, which also clearly establishes that no such

incident took place and he is only telling a lie before the Court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22137 of 2020 dt.21-01-2021

8. Today, upon interaction with the petitioner and the

opposite party no. 2, the Court is constrained to record its prima

facie view in the matter. The petitioner was very belligerent in his

stand with regard to not even considering any settlement. The

Court may note that earlier Mediation had also failed only due to

the attitude of the petitioner as the opposite party no. 2 was ready

to settle the matter and go back to the matrimonial home.

However, the interaction with the Court and the attitude of the

petitioner before the Court, has also made the Court come to the

tentative conclusion that his conduct discloses very harsh

approach and at this stage, the Court would not disbelieve the

allegations levelled against him, as from the interaction with the

Court today, lot of things were said by him which clearly indicated

that he carries the attitude that he is free to treat the opposite party

no. 2 in any way he likes and the opposite party no. 2 is supposed

to tolerate and bear everything, including that of his other family

members. However, the Court would not give any finding as it is

for the trial Court to come to a conclusive finding after giving

opportunity of hearing to the parties and also allowing them to

adduce witness in support of their contention.

9. Having given the matter serious thought, the Court is

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22137 of 2020 dt.21-01-2021

10. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

11. The interim protection given to the petitioner by

order dated 18.08.2020 stands withdrawn. The Court below shall

now proceed in the matter, in accordance with law.

12. Registry shall communicate the order to the Court

below latest by Monday (25th January, 2021).

13. Appearance of the parties stands dispensed with.

14. Let the main application supported by affidavit be e

filed by learned counsel for the petitioner latest by day after

tomorrow.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T