Amod Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19912 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2019 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictKatihar ====================================================== Amod Mandal Son Of Late Khokha Mandal R/O Village- Bairiya, P.S.- Tikapatti, District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Munni Devi Wife Of Amod Mandal R/O Village- Sabda, P.S.- Falka (POTHIA), District- Purnea ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State along with learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 08 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 that the matter was referred for mediation where efforts were made by the learned mediator to resolve the dispute. It is next submitted that the petitioner initially agrees before the learned mediator to settle the dispute by way of one time settlement by paying an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakh) but later he stopped appearing before learned mediator, which amply demonstrates that the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19912 of 2023(5) dt.27-02-2024 2/2 never had any intention of settling the dispute rather was only interested in seeking protection from this Court in the name of mediation. The said submission of the Opposite Party No. 2 is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner rather concurs with the submission of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 that petitioner stopped appearing before the learned mediator and in one of the proceedings he had agreed for resolving the dispute by way of one time settlement by paying an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakh).

4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and also taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner in not appearing before the learned mediator, after obtaining interim protection from this Court. Further, the Court is not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application.

5. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) aditi/- U T