Rajesh Kumar Roy @ Rajesh Roy v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9778 of 2017 (3) dt.11-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9778 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -159 Year- 2016 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Roy @ Rajesh Roy son of Rajendra Roy Resident of Village/Mohalla - Samahariya, P.S.- Agnour, District - Arwal. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Bhojpur Mahila Police Station Case No. 159 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 379, 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who is of clean antecedent is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner happens to be the husband of the complainant and he has never demanded any dowry nor he has assaulted the complainant. Earlier the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre for settlement of dispute but the medication proceeding could not be succeeded. Hence,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9778 of 2017 (3) dt.11-07-2017 the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that admittedly the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre and the mediation could not be succeeded due to non appearance of the petitioner, which is evident from mediation report. The petitioner does not want to kept the complainant as wife.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T