Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12035 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2334 Year-2017 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District- Vaishali ====================================================== RAUSHAN KUMAR, Son of Vishundeo Chaurashiya R/o village- Habibpur, P.S- Baligoan, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Guria Kumari Wife of Raushan Kumar R/o village- Habibpur, P.S- Baligoan, District- Vaishali ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sabal Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2019 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for informant and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with C-1 Case No. 2334 of 2017 (Trial No. 3059 of 2018), registered under Sections 323, 504, 498(A) and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, pending in the court of the S.D.J.M, Vaishali at Hajipur. The accusation is of torturing of the complainant by her husband and other in-laws due to non-fulfillment of demand of cash of Rs. Two Lakhs, in dowry, and removing her from matrimonial house along with her minor girl after

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12035 of 2019(5) dt.27-09-2019 2/2 snatching her personal belongings.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that while petitioner is ready to keep O.P. No.2, but she is not ready to live with him. Further submission is that the matter was referred to Mediation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna, where petitioner also expressed his desire to keep the O.P. No.2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2 submits that after filing of the present case on the initiation of the trial Court, the petitioner accompanied O.P. No.2 for his house, but, he left the O.P. No.2 in the way, in spite of that O.P. No.2 along with her minor girl reached at her matrimonial house, where she was assaulted by the petitioner and, thereafter, she was compelled to leave 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.

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