Dinesh Sahni v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5199 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2016 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Samastipur ====================================================== Dinesh Sahni, Son of Ram Lal Sahni, resident of village - Akbarpur, P.S. Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Chinta Kumari, Wife of Dinesh Sahni, resident of village - Akbarpur, P.S. Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. SMT. NIRMALA KUMARI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-10-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 498A, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Vide order dated 04.05.2017 the matter was referred to the Patna High court Mediation and Conciliation Center, but from the Mediator's Report it appears that mediation has failed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity but she herself is not ready to live with this petitioner. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are specific allegations
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5199 of 2017(5) dt.18-10-2017 2/2 against this petitioner. In mediation also, he did not deposited the amount as agreed. Being the husband, he is very much responsible to keep his wife with full honour and dignity in which he failed, and as such, he does not deserves to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T