Ajit Singh @ Mantu Singh @ Ajeet Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39775 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-612 Year-2018 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== AJIT SINGH @ MANTU SINGH @ AJEET KUMAR SINGH Son of Rama Shankar Singh Resident of Village- Barhuli, P.S.- Mohania, District- Kaimur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Juhi Kumari @ Sandhya Wife of Ajit Singh and Daughter of Satyendra Singh Resident of Village- Lahuara, P.S.- Kargahar, District- Rohtas ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajani Kant Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mohania P.S.Case No.612 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Section 498Aof the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Petitioner happens to be husband of the daughter of the informant and the allegation is of subjecting her daughter to cruelty and harassment and also made suspicion that he had killed her but it appears that later on she was recovered and made allegation of torture with respect to demand . Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after appearance of the O.P.no.2, the matte was referred to the Mediation Centre of Patna High Court but she is not ready to reside with the petitioner.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39775 of 2019(6) dt.19-12-2019 2/2 submitted that due to cruelty, meted out to her she is not ready to reside with the petitioner and she has filed maintenance case also before the learned Family Court, Sasaram, in which attempt was made for one time settlement also but that failed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already appeared in the maintenance case. Heard learned A.P.P.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, and considering the above facts, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 28.6.2019, is confirmed and this application is allowed on the condition that the petitioner has to appear in the maintenance case as and when required and to co-operate in the disposal of the maintenance case.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T