Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13416 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Sonu Kumar, Suraj Prasad @ Chhote Jee Resident of Mohalla Babu Bazar, Ara, P.S.- Ara, Town and District- Bhojpur (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Bandana Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 61 of 2018, registered under Sections 498(A), 307, 406, 467 and 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Bhojur, Ara.

The accusation is of torturing of complainantopposite party no.2 by her husband and in-laws due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and removing from her matrimonial house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the joint prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13416 of 2019(6) dt.20-11-2019 2/2 opposite party no.2, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna, for settlement of dispute in between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2, who are husband and wife, but the dispute could not be settled as opposite party no. 2 does not want to live with the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that during mediation proceeding, opposite party no. 2 was accompanied by the petitioner and opposite party no 2 stayed her matrimonial house about one month but due to rigid attitude of her husband and in-laws, she does not want to live at her matrimonial house.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T