Jay Shankar Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68230 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2017 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Jay Shankar Singh Son of late Parasnath Nath Singh Resident of VillageDhobaha, P.S. Ara Muffasil, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State Of Bihar 2.

Shobha Devi Wife of Jay Shankar Singh, Daughter of Kameshwar Singh Resident of Village- Dhobaha, P.S. Ara Muffasil, District- Bhojpur, At Present resident in Village- Bhadawar, P.S. Chandi, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 17-06-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 560 C of 2017 corresponding to Trial No. 4224 of 2018 for the offence punishable under sections 323, 341, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

By order dated 25.02.2019 this matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for arriving at an amicable settlement. Mediation report is received and is kept at Flag-A. Perusal of the report shows that due to non-appearance of the petitioner the mediation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68230 of 2018(5) dt.17-06-2019 2/2 failed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to keep his wife. However, due to illness of his mother he could not appear before the Mediator.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submits that petitioner neither appeared before the Mediator nor made any attempt to resolve the dispute. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is not willing to keep the opposite party no. 2.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record, the report of the mediation centre and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T