Sanjay Pandey v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6394 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -79 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- SIWAN ====================================================== Sanjay Pandey, S/o Late Baleshwar Pandey, R/o Village Tali, P.S. Guthani, Distt.-Siwan.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sabita Pandey, W/o Sanjay Pandey, D/o Late Rameshwar Dixit, R/o Village-Kilpur, P.S.-Nautan, District-Siwan.
.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2 and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 79 of 2016, registered under Sections 341, 323, 406, 494 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan. The accusation is of torturing of the complainant by her husband and other in-laws and also ousting her from matrimonial house along with her three children and also performingof re-marriage by the husband of the complainant/O.P. No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to misunderstanding the present case has been lodged by the O.P.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6394 of 2017 (4) dt.04-09-2017 2/2 No.2 with false allegation of performing re-marriage by the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2 submits that after investigation the Police has submitted Final Form for offence under Sections 498(A) and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Further submission is that on the joint prayer of the parties, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna, but due to non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner, the matter could not be settled between the parties.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T