Arjun Kumar @ Arjun Safi @ Arjun Kumar Safi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18913 of 2017 (3) dt.02-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18913 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -4 Year- 2017 Thana -LAKHNAUR District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== ARJUN KUMAR @ ARJUN SAFI @ ARJUN KUMAR SAFI, SON OF GAURI SAFI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PARMESRA, P.S.- LAKHNAUR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI.

.... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.

2. JYOTI RANI, WIFE OF ARJUN SAFI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARMESHRA, P.S. LAKHNAUR, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Aditya Narayan Singh 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 02-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Lakhnaur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani. 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.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18913 of 2017 (3) dt.02-08-2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the matter was referred to the Patna High Court, Mediation Centre for settlement of the dispute in between the petitioner and the complainant-opposite party no. 2 but the dispute could not be settled.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that while the opposite party no. 2 has expressed her desire to live with the petitioner but the petitioner refused to keep his wife in Mediation Centre. 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