Ram Ayodhaya Chaudhary @ Ram Adhya Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54689 of 2016 (5) dt.03-10-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54689 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -239 Year- 2016 Thana -ARA MUFFSIL District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Ram Ayodhaya Chaudhary @ Ram Adhya Chaudhary, Son of Jaga Chuadhary, Resident of Village- Sarangpur, P.S. Arrah, Muffasil, DistrictBhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Chan Muni Devi @ Chand Muni Devi, W/O Ram Ayodhya Choudhary. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ara Mufassil P.S. Case No. 239 of 2016, registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 434 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhohjpur at Ara. 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54689 of 2016 (5) dt.03-10-2017 petitioner is ready to keep his wife-opposite party no. 2 with full dignity and honour.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2 submits that on the joint prayer of petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Patna High Court, but in spite of best efforts, the petitioner could not turn up before the Mediation Centre due to that reason mediation could not succeed. Moreover, the petitioner has performed his re-marriage. 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