Raju Ray v. State Of Bihar And ANR
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18096 of 2017 (5) dt.16-10-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.18096 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2632 Year- 2015 Thana -SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSARAN ====================================================== Raju Ray Son of Shiv Prasad Ray, Resident of Village- Jhakhari, Police Station- Amnour, District- Saran (Chapra).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Rohila Devi, Wife of Raju Ray, Daughter of Rajnath Ray, Resident of Village- Jhakhari, Police Station- Amnour, District- Saran (Chapra), at present Resident of Village- Semarahiyan, Police Station- Marhowrah, District- Saran (Chapra).
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2632 of 2015, registered under Sections 323 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chapra, Saran. The accusation is of torturing the complainantopposite party no.2 by her husband and in-laws due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and also to remove from her matrimonial house.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the joint
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18096 of 2017 (5) dt.16-10-2017 prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna for settlement of dispute, where petitioner and the complainantopposite party no. 2 appeared but the mediation could not be succeed. In fact, complainant-opposite party no. 2 expressed her desire to live with the petitioner but the petitioner refused to take his wife-opposite party no. 2 and now petitioner wants to perform remarriage with another lady and wants to one time settlement. 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 trial 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) Bhardwaj/- U T