Prabhat Ranjan v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5771 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -342 Year- 2016 Thana -WAJIRGANJ District- GAYA ====================================================== Prabhat Ranjan Son of Sri Lakshman Prasad Resident of Urmila Niwas, Deep Nagar, Sarswati Vihar Colony, Road No.-3, Police Station- Byepass Patna, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Neha Kumari daughter of Sri Sadan Prasad Resident of Village- Tarvan, Police Station- Wazirganj, District- Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabi Bhushan Prasad No. 1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.M. Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Wazirganj P.S. Case No.342/16 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Accusation is of torturing of the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and removing her from her matrimonial home by her husband and other in-laws. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after completing the MBBS is under preparation for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5771 of 2017 (15) dt.18-07-2017 2/2 admission in M.S.. Further submission is that the dispute occurred due to ill behavior of the informant with the petitioner and his mother and the informant only wants to disturb the family of the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that in spite of mediation and conciliation to settle the dispute between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 could not be settled as the petitioner is not ready to keep his wife O.P.No.2.

Further submission is that at present the petitioner is doing job in Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Delhi. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) AnilKrSinha/- U T