Amar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14233 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-499 Year-2024 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Amar Kumar S/o Ramlal Singh R/o Village- Rajkha Rampur, P.S- Tajpur, District- Samstipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Aradhana Anupam D/o Dip Narayan Singh R/o Village- Kewas Nijamat, P.S- Muffasil, Distt.- Samastipur.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anish Chandra, APP.

For the Informant :

Ms. Mili Kumari, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-09-2025 Heard Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Anish Chandra, learned APP for the State and Ms. Mili Kumari, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 499 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 64 of the BNS and Sections 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.

3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., on the pretext of marriage, petitioner established physical relationship

2/4 with the informant and refused to marry with her due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 15 lacs and a car and also usurped Rs. 1,50,000/- from the father of the informant on the pretext of admission in G.N.M. course.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the informant has admitted that she was in relationship with the petitioner and during the said period, she established physical relationship with the petitioner. However, learned counsel admits that there are certain transaction of money and petitioner don't deny the same, but to get rid of the criminal prosecution, he will return the said amount back to the informant or her father.

5. Ms. Mili Kumari, learned counsel has tendered her appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and submitted that so far as extortion of money on the pretext of marriage is concerned, the criminal intent of the petitioner is made out. As such, the petitioner don't deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

6. Heard the parties.

7. This Court considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner and admission on the part of the opposite party no.2 that she was in relationship with the

3/4 petitioner, offered both the parties, as to whether, they are willing to settle their dispute amicably outside the Court?

8. Both the parties agreed that they will settle the dispute outside the Court and have willingly desired to appear before the learned District Court on 15.09.2025 at 10:30 AM.

9. Learned District Court is directed to refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center considering the fact that law in respect of relationship between the two adult and establishment of physical relationship between them during the said period as per their mutual consent has been discussed in the case of Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 15 SCC 385 and also the fact that the parties have entered into compromise in accordance with the provision of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

10. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center concerned is only required to settle the dispute in respect of the demand of Rs. 15 lacs on the basis of evidences in respect of transfer of money by the informant and her family members and accepted by the petitioner and thereafter submit his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well within a period of four months, till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case.

4/4

11. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to appear on 15.09.2025 before the learned District Court or any date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force.

12. Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U T