Raushan Rawat @ Raushan Kumar Rawat v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4610 of 2018 Arising Out of Complaint Case No.715C Year- 2013 Thana- District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Raushan Rawat @ Raushan Kumar Rawat, S/o Hare Ram Rawat, R/o VillageFulwariya, P.S.- Barhat, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Nitu Devi, W/o Maheshwar Mandal, R/o Village- Oraiya, P.S. and DistrictLakhisarai. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

SRI VINOD SHANKAR MODI, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 31-01-2018 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The present application has been filed for modification of the order dated 03.03.2015, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6558 of 2015 for confirming the provisional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner.

The petitioner being the husband of the complainant was granted provisional anticipatory bail for one year in connection with Complaint Case No. 715C of 2013, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lakhisarai, wherein, process has been directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under section 498A of the I.P.C., on submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4610 of 2018(2) dt.31-01-2018 2/3 statement made in paragraph no.14 of the main application that the petitioner is ready to keep the complainant as wife with full dignity and honour and the offer of the petitioner was acceptable to the complainant. Both sides agreed to appear before the learned Court below on 16th of March, 2015, when the petitioner was to take the complainant to keep her as wife with full dignity and honour. The provisional anticipatory bail of petitioner was to be confirmed by the learned Court below in three eventualities i.e., (i) on substantial restoration of matrimonial harmony within a period of one year (ii) or if the complainant fails to appear before the learned Court below (iii) or if the complainant is reluctant to reconcile the issue. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the complainant reconciled the issue, but subsequently the issue could not be reconciled due to the reluctance of opposite party no.2.

Since, the order dated 28.09.2016, passed by the learned Court below in Complaint Case No.715C of 2013, reflects that the petitioner never made any application before the learned Court below for confirming the provisional bail and his bail bond has already been cancelled, this Court is not inclined to modify the earlier order.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4610 of 2018(2) dt.31-01-2018 3/3 Accordingly the modification application is disposed of.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/- U T