Sitaram Chauhan v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76968 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1202 Year-2017 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE District- Nawada ====================================================== Sitaram Chauhan, Son of Chauthi Chauhan, Resident of Village- Maheshpur, P.S. Kashichak, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Sangeeta Kumari, D/o Tulshi Prasad @ Tulshi Chauhan, Resident of Village- Mahdeba, P.O. P.S.- Hiusa, District- Nawada. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sri Uday Chand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-08-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1202 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Allegation is of demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and one motorcycle from the complainant, due to non-fulfillment, she was ousted from the house. Further, he has also married with another lady.
On the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is ready to keep her with dignity and care, the matter was referred to the Patna High Court Mediation and Reconciliation Center, but it appears that due to his nonappearance the mediation failed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76968 of 2018(7) dt.28-08-2019 2/3 Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the whole allegation is false and concocted. He has no criminal antecedent.
Heard learned A.P.P. also who has opposed the prayer for bail stating that not only there is allegation of demand but he has solemnized the second marriage with another lady and conduct of the petitioner will appear at one side, he is ready to keep her, but not co-operated in the Case is under Section 498A of IPC.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as a matter of fact, the opposite party no.2 has illicit relationship with one Manoj Kumar and that is why she is not ready to reside with the petitioner and they are reside at Delhi. However, he is still ready to keep her, but she refused to reside with the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that she is also ready to reside with the petitioner.
In such view of the matter, let the matter be referred to the Patna High Court Mediation and Reconciliation Center. Both the parties to appear before the mediation center on 15.07.2019 and the Mediator to submit a report to this Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76968 of 2018(7) dt.28-08-2019 3/3 by 06.09.2019.
Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, the petitioner may move before the learned court below for regular bail which will be considered by the learned court below. With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sunil Shukla/- U T