Md. Rajbuddin @ Rajbuddin v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21445 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-292 Year-2017 Thana- GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE District- Gopalganj ====================================================== MD. RAJBUDDIN @ RAJBUDDIN Son of Md. Hukum Resident of VillageBadi Lakri, Post Ofice- Lakri, Police Station- Nabiganj, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rehana Khatoon, Wife of Md. Rajbuddin @ Rajbuddin, Daughter of Md. Hashim Resident of Village- Badi Lakri, Post Office- Lakri, Police StationNabiganj, District-Siwan. at present residing at village- Katalpur, Post Office- Katalpur, Police Station- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Lokesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-12-2019 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 292 (C) of 2017, registered under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M, Gopalganj.

The accusation is of torturing of the complainant/O.P. No.2 by her husband and in-laws due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and removing her from matrimonial house along with her child.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that on the joint prayer of the parties, the matter was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21445 of 2019(8) dt.04-12-2019 2/2 referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna, where the matter was settled in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 05.08.2019, which is the part of the Mediator's report dated 14.08.2019, while as per agreement, O.P. No.2 was accompanied with the petitioner, but she left the matrimonial house.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/O.P. No.2 submits that while in terms of Memorandum of Agreement, complainant/O.P. No.2 was accompanied by the petitioner, but, later on, she was driven out from her matrimonial house. The complainant/O.P. No.2 along with her daughter is living at her Myaka.

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. If the bail bond has been furnished on behalf of the petitioner in the light of order dated 05.04.2019, whereunder the petitioner was allowed provisional bail, in case of his arrest, is, hereby, cancelled.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T