Md. Sameer @ Ujale @ Md. Sameer Ahmad @ Sameer v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21011 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2017 Thana- SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== MD. SAMEER @ UJALE @ MD. SAMEER AHMAD @ SAMEER Son of Md. Ibrahim Resident of Village - Muraul, P.S.- Bajpatti, District - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Afsana Khatoon Wife of Md. Sameear @ Ujale D/O Marhum Md. Sadrul Hasan at present residing at Village Dadari, P.S.- Nanpur, District - Sitamarhi ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uday Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Prem Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.C1/100/17 dated 27.3.2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The complaint petition shows that O.P.no.2 was married with the petitioner and the petitioner and other accused persons started demanding Rs.2 lac as dowry and on refusal she was tortured and ousted from the house.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegation is false and concocted and it further appears that the matter was referred to the Mediation and Reconciliation Centre vide order dated 4.4.2019 passed in the instant case and a report of the Mediators disclosed that the mediation failed in spite of the best and sincere efforts . Further submission is that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21011 of 2019(3) dt.08-05-2019 2/2 as a matter of fact the O.P.no.2 was adamant for one time settlement and the demand was very high as such the meditation failed.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 has submitted that he had married with another lady and earlier also the learned court below tried to make reconciliation but the petitioner did not appear before the learned court below and here also he is not ready for any settlement. Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides and in view of allegation and the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as such the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 4.4.2019 passed in the instant case is vacated and the petitioner is directed to surrender and pray for regular bail.

With the aforesaid direction, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T