Vikram Pratap v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46305 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2019 Thana- CIVIL LINE District- Gaya ====================================================== VIKRAM PRATAP Son of Vinod Kumar Resident at Amar Niwas, Gurua Bazar, P.S.- Gurua, Distt - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Surabhi Kumari wife of Vikram Pratap, D/o Vijay Kumar, C/o Jagdish Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Nadarganj, Pulpar, P.s.- Civil Lines, Gaya, DsitrictGaya ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman, APP For O. P. No. 2 :

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate Mr. Priya Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 15-10-2019 Pursuant to the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by this Court, both the parties along with their learned Advocates are present in Chambers.

The opposite party no. 2 has informed that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner had visited her maike at Nawadih in the district of Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand on 6th October, 2019 and expressed his desire to take her back to the matrimonial home at Muzaffarpur where he would live with the opposite party no. 2 but the opposite party no. 2 expressed her desire that the petitioner should stay for two more days at Nawadih and thereafter, only she would accompany him. It is stated that the petitioner did not stop there

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46305 of 2019(4) dt.15-10-2019 2/3 and returned back to his place.

The petitioner who is also present submits that he had gone to the maike of the opposite party no. 2 to bring her back, he was performing Navratra at his house and he wanted to bring her back to the matrimonial home but instead of accompanying him, the opposite party no. 2 asked him to stay for two days which he was not in a position to stay because of Puja going on at his place.

Both the parties have discussed their problems in presence of learned counsel from which it appears that the dispute between the parties arose out of their incompatibility over their respective job conditions. At this stage, once again the petitioner expressed his desire to take back opposite party no. 2 to the matrimonial home at Muzaffarpur, however, the opposite party no. 2 is not willing to go there because she is still apprehensive of her comfortable stay at Muzaffarpur. Learned counsel of both the parties at one stage advised them to stay together at least for a week at Muzaffarpur to discuss their problems and to resolve the issues but ultimately it could not become possible.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner by the learned co-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46305 of 2019(4) dt.15-10-2019 3/3 ordinate Bench on 26.07.2019 in connection with Gaya Civil Linies P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019 is hereby confirmed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the previous bail bond.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/- U T