Gyan Bardhan Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.34171 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -329 Year- 2012 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- SHEOHAR ====================================================== Gyan Bardhan Singh Son of Sri Arvind Singh Resident of Village - Bangaon, Police Station - Bajpatti, District - Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nutan Kumari Wife of Gyan Bardhan Singh and daughter of Sri Ramakant Singh, Resident of Village - Chiraiya, P.S. Purnaihiya, District - Sheohar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 329 of 2012 registered under Section 498A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant-wife made allegations against the petitioner-husband that the petitioner subjected her to all sorts of physical and mental torture due to non-fulfillment of dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the Anticipatory Bail Petition of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29714 of 2013. It is submitted that in view of the new development, the petitioner is
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34171 of 2014 (2) dt.10-02-2015 2/2 ready for settlement of the dispute. The petitioner has already paid Rs. 4,50,000/- to his wife and the remaining amount, the petitioner is likely to pay soon.
Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submits that there is no new development. Be that as it may, from perusal of the record, it appears that prior to filing of the present case, the Anticipatory Bail Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T