Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28416/2016rejected

Manish Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-02-02Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28416 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -800 Year- 2013 Thana -JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE DistrictJEHANABAD ====================================================== Manish Kumar, Son of Jitendra Kumar, Resident of Village - Kenduaa, P.S. Parasbigha, District - Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Buty Kumari, W/o Manish Kumar, Resident of Village - Kenduaa, P.S. Parasbigha, District - Jehanabad .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr.

For the Opposite Parties : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner is the husband of the complainant/opposite party no. 2. Marriage was solemnized on 27.05.2009. Thereafter there is allegation of demand of dowry and torture for the same.

Opposite party no. 2 has already appeared. This Court was inclined to send the matter for mediation but the stand of the petitioner in para 7 of the bail petition is that in Matrimonial Case No. 60 of 2013, a decree of dissolution of marriage has already

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28416 of 2016 (4) dt.02-02-2017 2/2 been passed on 17.02.2016. However, the petitioner is ready for other settlements than restoration of matrimonial life. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the aforesaid case, the opposite party no. 2 has already taken step by filing petition. She is willing for restoration of matrimonial life.

Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 800 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad. Hence, prayer for bail is refused.

Kundan (Birendra Kumar, J) U T