Guddu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16835 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2022 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== GUDDU RAM Son of Pawan Ram R/v- Kariyan, P.S.- Rosera, DistrictSamastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Usha Kumari Wife of Guddu Ram R/v- Morwara, P.S.- Kalyanpur DistrictSamastipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 25-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complain Case No. 20 of 2022, instituted for the offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'IPC') and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for brevity 'D.P. Act). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is willing to reconcile the issue with his wife. It is further submitted that the petitioner will make all genuine efforts to reconcile the issue so that the reconciliation culminates in restoration of matrimonial harmony or one time settlement as may be agreed upon between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16835 of 2023(2) dt.25-05-2023 2/2 In view of the nature of allegation and the fact that since terms of reconciliation has to be worked out, this Court would direct that if the petitioner surrenders in the court below, i.e., the court of learned S.D.J.M, Samastipur, within a period of four weeks from today, in connection with Compliant case No. 20 of 2022, T.R. No.- 2809/2022 and submits an undertaking to this effect at the time of his surrender, the court below, after issuing notice to Opposite party No. 2 will grant provisional bail to the petitioner for a period of three months. The parties would make attempt to work out an amiable resolution of the dispute and the matter would be reviewed by the court below after three (3) months.

This Court makes it clear that if the issue is resolved amicably, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner should be confirmed. If the developments are, however otherwise, the court below would be free to pass orders in exercise of its judicial discretion, including cancellation of the provisional bail granted to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations the application stands disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Raj kishore/- U T