Jay Prakash Mishra v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9366 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-715 Year-2014 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Jay Prakash Mishra, Son of Late Raghubir Mishra, Resident of Village - Lathbigha, P.S. Khijarsarai, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Veena Devi, Wife of Jai Prakash Mishra, Resident of Lathbigha, P.S. Khijarsarai, District - Gaya. At present Veena Devi, Daughter of Ram Autar Pandey, Resident of Village - Turk Telpa, P.S. Karpi, District - Arwal. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pushpendra Priyedarshi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 715 of 2014 registered under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Arwal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the joint prayer the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna, for settlement of dispute in between

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9366 of 2019(4) dt.16-08-2019 2/2 the petitioner and the opposite party no.2, who are husband and wife, but the matter could not be settled as petitioner performed his re-marriage with another lady.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that petitioner has already permed his remarriage but he is ready to maintain to opposite party no.2. 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