Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8037 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-734 Year-2018 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVaishali ====================================================== MUKESH KUMAR Son of Sri Kapildeo Rai Resident of Village - Aghlalpur, P.O.- Dashara, P.S.- Patori, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Munni Raj, wife of Sri Mukesh Kumar Daughter of Surendra Rai, At present Resident of Village - Godai Sarai, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, District-Vaishali. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Chandra Gandhi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2019 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 734/2018 registered under Sections 307, 313, 323, 379, 498A and 504B of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is that marriage of the complainant along with the petitioner was solemnized on 04.05.2017 in which gift and cash etc, were given, however, after some time, the petitioner along with other family members started demanding four-wheeler from the complainant and due to non-fulfillment of demand, accused persons started torturing her mentally and physically.

It appears that the matter was referred to mediation where both parties agreed that they would live together and in pursuance thereof petitioner and O.P. No. 2 proceeded together

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8037 of 2019(5) dt.15-07-2019 2/3 to their house at Patori, Samastipur.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which, it has been stated that they reached Hajipur, residence of O.P.No. 2, where she refused to take bus for Patori and insisted that her parents are coming and after meeting them, she would depart to Patori i.e., her matrimonial home. It has further been stated that parents of O.P.No. 2 arrived and started abusing the petitioner and took away O.P. No. 2 along with them for which petitioner lodged FIR being Sonpur (Hajipur) Rail P.S.Case No. 58 of 2019 under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code . It is further stated in the affidavit that O.P. No. 2 also lodged an FIR against the petitioner, after the FIR lodged by the petitioner, stating therein that petitioner took O.P. No. 2 on foot up to Hajipur, which amounts to torture to her.

By order dated 26.06.2019, in presence of learned counsels for the petitioner as well as O.P.No. 2, case was listed on 15.07.2019 in Chambers at 4:00 P.M. with understanding that both, petitioner as well as OPNo. 2, would be present personally along with their respective counsels. Today, when the matter has been taken up, petitioner, who is serving in Indian Army at Jammu and Kashmir, is present in Chambers, but neither

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8037 of 2019(5) dt.15-07-2019 3/3 counsel of the O.P.No. 2 nor O.P.No. 2 is present in person. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to keep his wife with all dignity and care, however, the wife is not willing to stay with the petitioner. He further submits that allegation of demand of dowry is vague and omnibus in nature and is highly improbable inasmuch as petitioner is working as Sepoy (General Duty) in Indian Army and is posted in Jammu and Kashmir, will demand four-wheeler! After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is ready to keep his wife and willingness of the petitioner is apparent on the face of it that he came all along from Jammu and Kashmir to be present before this Court, however, neither O.P. No.

2 nor her advocate appeared today before this Court in Chambers. Accordingly, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as such provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13.02.2019 is hereby confirmed and the bail bond furnished by the petitioner shall be treated to be the bail bond submitted pursuant to this order.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sujit/- U T