Dilip Paswan v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6093 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1999 Year- 2014 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- JAMUI ====================================================== Dilip Paswan, Son of Late Bhagirath Paswan @ Late Amir Paswan, resident of Village- Kundhur, P.S. Gidhour, District- Jamui. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Anju Devi, Wife of Dilip Paswan, D/o Ganouri Paswan, resident of Kundhur, P.S. Gidhour, District- Jamui Presently residing at Nijuara, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case for the offence registered under Section 498(A) of the IPC. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioner tortured the victim due to nonfulfilment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to petty family dispute. The case is triable by the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6093 of 2018 (5) dt.05-11-2018 2/2 Magistrate. The petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182.

On behalf of the learned counsels for the State and opposite party no. 2, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/ complaint case.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M. Jamui, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1999C/2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of reconciliation or one time settlement.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T