Madhusudan Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14005 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2013 Thana- PHULWARIA District- Begusarai ====================================================== MADHUSUDAN RAM, Son of Rambilash Ram, resident of villagePhulwariaganj, P.S.-Fulwaria, District-Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

2. Manju Devi, wife of Madhusudan Ram, resident of village Phulwariaganj, P.S. Fulwaria, Dist. Begusarai, at present daughter of Surya Narayan Ram, at village Rampur Kalyanpur, P.S. Motihani, Dist. Begusarai ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Matloob Rab ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2019 Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Phulwaria P.S. Case No. 152 of 2013, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Allegation against the petitioner is of torturing and assaulting the informant with respect to demand of dowry and ousting her from the matrimonial house and it further appears that the case is of the year 2013.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is still ready to keep her with dignity and care, on the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail stating that earlier the matter was compromised and she was taken to her matrimonial house but thereafter again she was assaulted and ousted. Further submission is that prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by learned Sessions Judge in the year 2013

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14005 of 2019(3) dt.01-05-2019 2/2 and thereafter he has made second application and furthermore the maintenance case filed by the opposite party No.2 has been decided in her favour but petitioner filed Cr.Revision No. 844 of 2018 which was dismissed vide order dated 26.3.2019 and petitioner has not paid a single penny to her. Heard learned APP also.

Having heard both sides and in the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He may surrender and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered on the basis of materials available on the record. It is made clear that if both the parties agree to reconcile the matter, they may approach the court below and the court below will pass appropriate order considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter. With the above observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T