Devanand Prasad @ Munna v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.940 of 2017 (5) dt.03-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.940 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -785 Year- 2015 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Devanand Prasad @ Munna, s/o Chandradev Prasad, resident of VillagePrahanda, P.O.- Ilra, P.S.- Cherki, Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Chitra Arya, W/o Devanand Prasad @ Munna, D/o Narendra Kumar, R/o Neura Colony, Q.No. 482 (A.B.), P.O.+P.S.- Khagaul, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. For the O.P. : B.N. Gupta, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complainant Case No. 785(C) of 2015 registered under Sections 498 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Danapur, Patna.

The accusation is of torturing the complainantopposite party no. 2 by her husband and in-laws due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and driving out from her matrimonial house and also to performing re-marriage with

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.940 of 2017 (5) dt.03-07-2017 another lady.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna, but the dispute between the petitioner and the complainantopposite party no.2, who are the husband and wife, could not be settled due to performing re-marriage by the petitioner with another lady.

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