← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48788/2016dismissed

Satendra Kumar @ Satendra Kumar Singh @ Satendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-21Mr. Justice Sanjay Priya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48788 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -139 Year- 2016 Thana -PUNPUN District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Satendra Kumar @ Satendra Kumar Singh @ Satendra Singh, son of Rajeshwar Singh, resident of Village- Mithyan P.S.- Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Priyanka Kumari, d/o Umesh Singh, resident of village-Barah, P.S.- Punpun, District- Patna.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kr Singh No.1, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, Advocate Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 4/ 21-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State as well as counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 The Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Punpun P.S. Case No.139 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 147, 323, 504, 506, 498-A, 354 Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi, Patna. Petitioner is husband of the Opposite Party No.2. There is specific allegation of committing physical and mental torture with the Opposite Party No.2 for demand of dowry. With consent of both the parties, matter was referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre for amicable settlement of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48788 of 2016 (4) dt.21-06-2017 2/2 dispute, but the report of the Mediator is that dispute could not be resolved.

It is mentioned in the impugned order itself that the Opposite Party No.2 was always ready to live with the petitioner but he refused to keep her.

In view of such, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Prayer is rejected.

The petitioner may surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T