Pawan Kumar @ Bittu v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.190 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1164 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Pawan Kumar @ Bittu son of Sri Sanjeev Vishwakarma, resident of VillBaran, P.S-Rani Talab, Kanpa, District-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Kumari Priyank D/o Sri Ramayan Vishwakarma, resident of Vill-Kasra, P.SBikram, District-Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranvijay Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-04-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1164(C) of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 498(A), 373, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Allegation against the petitioner is of subjecting his wife to cruelty and harassment with respect to demand of dowry. It appears that earlier on appearance of opposite party no.2, the matter referred to Mediation Center vide order dated 06.03.2019 and both the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Center on 28.03.2019, however, it appears from the Mediator's report that the petitioner has failed to appear on 28.03.2019, 02.04.2019 and on 04.04.2019 also the petitioner has not appeared and as such, the Mediator has recommended for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.190 of 2019(4) dt.16-04-2019 2/2 initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to some urgent work, he could not appear before the Mediator and he is still ready to keep the opposite party no.2 alongwith him. Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, they have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and interim order granted earlier is withdrawn, however, if the petitioner takes the opposite party no.2 from her house and pray for regular bail and appear along with her before the court below on 30.04.2019, the learned court below shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order. Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Amjad/- U T