Dipak Rai @ Dipak Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28650 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-321 Year-2018 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran ====================================================== Dipak Rai @ Dipak Kumar Rai, Son of Shatrohan Rai, Resident of Village - Shikarpur Hakma, P.S.- Bheldi, District - Saran at Chhapra, Bihar ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Pooja Kumari, Wife of Dipak Rai, Resident of Village - Shikarpur Hakma, P.S.- Bheldi, District - Saran at Chhapra, Bihar at present D/O Late Marai Rai, Resident of Village - Banni, P.O. - Nagra, , P.S.- Khaira, District - Saran at Chhapra ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Advocate For the Opposite Parties :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No.321 of 2018 in which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 17.07.2019, the instant case was referred for mediation by fixing date of appearance on 24.07.2010. Though the petitioner appeared with his counsel on 27.07.2019 and 08.08.2019, the opposite party no.2 remained

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28650 of 2019(4) dt.17-08-2019 2/3 absent on both dates, but her counsel Nawal Kishore Singh, advocate was present. He submitted that no effort was made on behalf of the complainant to settle the dispute. Hence, learned Mediator submitted his report on 09.08.2019 holding that in absence of one party, no mediation could take place. Hence, the mediation failed. He further contended that the complainant always causes acrimony with family members and pressurizes the petitioner to live somewhere else, which is difficult for him in view of financial position and also the bonding with other family members. He submitted that there is no truth behind the allegation that the complainant was ever subjected cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs. 1 lakh.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that in the complaint, it has been alleged that the petitioner and other family members started demanding Rs.1 lakh from her in dowry. They also threatened that the petitioner would marry another girl if the demand is not fulfilled. Be that as it may, regard being had to the nature of allegation as also the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of six weeks, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28650 of 2019(4) dt.17-08-2019 3/3 two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM-X, Saran at Chhapra in connection with Complaint Case No.321 of 2018 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- U T