Dilip Mandal @ Dilip Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7869 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2023 Thana- AMDABAD District- Katihar ====================================================== Dilip Mandal @ Dilip Kumar Son of Ram Kishan Mandal R/o vill - Balrampur, P.S - Amdabad, Dist. - Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhola Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-05-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State along with learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 498A, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. By order dated 02.05.2024, the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 were directed to remain physically present before this Court on 14.05.2024 along with their respective learned counsels.

4. Today, when the case is taken up, the O.P. No. 2 is present, but petitioner has not appeared.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was informed about the order dated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7869 of 2024(4) dt.14-05-2024 2/2 02.05.2024 that he has been directed to appear on 14.05.2024, but today in the afternoon when the petitioner did not come to the Court, it is submitted that a call was made, on which he informed that he was ill.

6. The O.P. No. 2, who is present in the Court, submits that her husband works at Pune and that is the reason why he has not appeared. It is next submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that if the petitioner was ill, then he ought to have informed his learned lawyer much in advance so that an exemption application could have been filed, but then the same was not done which amply demonstrates that only an excuse has been made and the order of this Court has been flouted with impunity.

7. In view of the submission made by the O.P. No. 2, the Court is not inclined to extend to the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T