Alok Pradhan v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22596 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3730 Year- 2013 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Alok Pradhan Son of late Chandra Bhushan Prasad resident of S.K. House, Mogul Kuan, Police Station Mogul Kuan, District Biharsharif (Nalanda.) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Amita Sinha wife of Alok Pradhan C/o Suraj Kumar, Saraaswati Lane, Lohanipur, Police Station Kadamkuan, District Patna and also at Present near Dr. Mohan Singh Khajanchi Road, Police station Pirbahore, District Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha - 2 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lallan Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-10-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498(A) and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The complainant is the wife of the petitioner. She made allegation that the petitioner subjected her to physical and mental torture and, on account of torture, her mother gave Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioner but even thereafter the petitioner continued to torture the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to keep his wife. The matter was heard in chambers but due to reluctance of the complainant, the matter could not be resolved.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22596 of 2015 (7) dt.08-10-2015 2/2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner subjected the complainant to all sorts of torture. There was an agreement before Mahila Helpline in which the petitioner agreed to keep his wife and pay Rs. 2,000/- per month for her maintenance and also to return the pledged ornaments of his wife. It is submitted that during the pendency of the case, the petitioner sent SMS threatening the complainant.

It appears that the wife has made very specific allegation that the petitioner subjected her to all sorts of torture. Even after efforts made by the Court as well as the Mahila Helpline, the matter could not be resolved amicably. The petitioner had agreed to keep his wife with full dignity but again he subjected his wife to different sorts of torture. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 3730(C) of 2013. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T