Ranjit Pandit @ Ranjit Kumar Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32203 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-291 Year-2018 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria ====================================================== RANJIT PANDIT @ RANJIT KUMAR PANDIT Son of Raj Kishore Pandit Resident of Village- East Aurahi, Ward No.-5, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.

Gunjan Devi W/O Ranjit Pandit @ Ranjit Kumar Pandit, D/o Surya nand Pandit Resident of Village- Pandit Tola, Gidhwas, Ward No.-9, P.S.- Raniganj, District- Araria.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nishant Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.291-C/2018 registered for offences punishable under Section 498(A) the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act..

Allegation against the petitioner is of demand of Rs.01 lac and one motorcycle and for non-fulfillment of the same, the complainant was ousted from the matrimonial house. In this case after appearance of the O.P.no.2, the matter was referred to the Meditation Centre vide order dated 5.8.2019 and now mediator report is available at flag 'M' that shows that in spite of sincere efforts, the dispute between the parties could

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32203 of 2019(4) dt.01-10-2019 2/2 not be resolved.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he could not inform his party as such he has not appeared in the mediation .

On the other hand submission of the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 is that intentionally he has not appeared in the meditation, as the provisional bail has been granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 15.5.2019. Further submission is that he is also not paying a single penny to the informant for her maintenance.

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides and considering the allegation as well as the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T