Chandan Kumar Tiwary v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11927 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -733 Year- 2016 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Chandan Kumar Tiwary, Son of Mirtunjay Tiwary, Resident of VillageTiwary Tola, Ahiapur Maner, Police Station- Maner, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Priti Devi, Wife of Chandan Kumar Tiwary, daughter of Ravikant Sharma, R/o Parari, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-04-2018 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. By order dated 05.03.2018, an opportunity was given to the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 for making one time settlement.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11927 of 2018 (4) dt.25-04-2018 2/3 It has been submitted by learned counsels for the parties that one time settlement could not be made between the parties.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to petty family dispute. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. 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. He is husband of the opposite party no. 2. There is specific allegation against him. On earlier occasion also, the opposite party no. 2 was put to torture and regarding the same, Maner P.S. Case No. 520 of 2014 was instituted by opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in connection with Complaint Case No. 733C/2016, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M. Danapur, Patna.

Anyhow, if the petitioner surrenders in the court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the learned court

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11927 of 2018 (4) dt.25-04-2018 3/3 below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of the Court.

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