Dinesh Ram v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.59507 of 2018 In Criminal Miscellaneous No.56297 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year- Thana- District- East Champaran ====================================================== Dinesh Ram, Son of Bhikhari Ram, Resident of Village - Bankatwa, P.S. Paharpur, District -East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Reema Devi, D/o Prabhu Ram, R/o village Jamla P.S. Muffasil, District - East Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Mustaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-12-2018 The present application has been filed for modification of order dated 11.12.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 56297 of 2015, whereby the petitioner, being the husband of the informant, was granted provisional anticipatory bail for one year in Motihari Mahila P.S. Case No. 73 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari on submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner admits his marriage with the informant and is ready to keep the informant as wife with full dignity and honour, statement to that effect was made in paragraph 12 of the main

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.59507 of 2018(4) dt.12-12-2018 2/2 petition. The learned Court below was supposed to issue notice to the informant and on her appearance the petitioner was to take the informant to keep her as wife with full dignity and honour. The provisional bail was to be confirmed by the learned Court below in three eventualities - (i) if the matrimonial harmony is substantially restored or (ii) if the informant fails to appear before the learned Court below or (iii) if the informant deliberately gets reluctant to reconcile the issue. Since the period of provisional anticipatory bail of the petitioner got lapsed on 10.12.2016 and the present modification has been preferred on 20.09.2018, this Court is not inclined to interfere since this application has become infructuous. However, this order will not preclude the learned Court below to consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T