Shantosh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44450 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2019 Thana- TANDWA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Shantosh Ram, Son of Late Ram Prasad Ram, Resident of Village - Ghurabara, P.S.- Tandawa, Distt - Aurangabad (M) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No. 11 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498(A) and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad.

The accusation is of torturing the informant by her husband and in-laws due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and removing from her matrimonial house making allegation regarding her character.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits while the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Patna High Court, Patna, for settlement of dispute in between the petitioner and the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44450 of 2019(3) dt.16-11-2019 2/2 opposite party no.2 but the matter could not be settled between the parties.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that before the Mediation Centre, opposite party no. 2 expressed her desire to live her conjugal life with the petitioner but the petitioner refused to take at her matrimonial house making allegation regarding her character. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

Accordingly, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 19.07.2019 stands cancel. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T