Pramod Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32632 of 2015 (3) dt.02-12-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32632 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -318 Year- 2014 Thana -AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Son of Uday Prasad Verma@uday Prasad resident of Village Morarpur,(Biharsharif), P.s Laheri, District Nalanda at Biharsharif .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Smt. Madhu Soni@Arti Soni W/o Pramod kumar, D/o Gopa Prasad resident of Village Morarpur (Bihar Sharif) P.s Laheri , District Nalanda at Present resident of Village Rafiganj(Mohalla -Maharajganj P.O and P.s Rafiganj District Aurangabad) .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 02-12-2015 The matter has been listed under the heading " Order on Office Notes".

It appears that after receipt of notice by the father of the opposite party no. 2, she has appeared in person before this court and therefore, this case can be heard as the petitioner is also present in Court today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite party No. 2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 318 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32632 of 2015 (3) dt.02-12-2015 After much deliberations, it has transpired that the petitioner is absolutely recalcitrant not to live with the opposite party no. 2 whereas; opposite party no. 2 is eager and desirous to live with her husband alongwith her baby child. It has been suggested by this Court that till the opposite party no. 2 is able to build her confidence on her husband, the petitioner may visit and meet with opposite party no. 2 alongwith her child but the petitioner is adamant not to go there, at all. Under such circumstances, it appears that petitioner has no intention to reconcile and resolve the issue. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is constrained to withdraw the interim protection passed in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected. (Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U T