Md. Jamaluddin @ Sonu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55547 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-375 Year-2018 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== MD. JAMALUDDIN @ SONU Son of Md. Nizam Anasri Resident of Village - Luskariganj @ Bara Nagar Right Gate of Sukha Rauza, P.S.- Sasaram Nagar, Distt - Rohtas at Sasaram.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.

Roaxiya Khanam@Rokaiya Khanam Wife of Md. Jamaluddin @ Sonu, D/o Nizamuddin Resident of Village - Neel Kothi, Ward No. 31, P.S.- Dehri, Distt - Rohtas at Sasaram.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Babu Nandan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-12-2019 This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Complaint Case No. 375 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 341, 504, 506, 384, 386 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner happens to he husband of the complainant and allegation against him is of subjecting the complainant to torture in connection with demand of dowry.

It appears that on appearance of opposite party no. 2 the matter was referred to Patna High Court Mediation and Conciliation Center, for settlement of dispute between the parties and an interim report has been submitted by learned Mediator, requesting for extension of time as there is likelihood of resolution of dispute

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55547 of 2019(4) dt.19-12-2019 2/2 between the parties.

However, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that now the settlement has been reached between the parties and opposite party no. 2 is residing with the petitioner. Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 has not controverted the above submission of learned counsel for the petitioner In view of the above facts, provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 02.09.2019 is extended for a period of six months and in the meantime, the petitioner and complainant will appear in the court below in the first week of each month for a period of six months and after six months, if the court below is satisfied with the conduct of the parties, specially the conduct of the petitioner, he will confirm the provisional bail of the petitioner otherwise, he is free to pass any order as he deems fit and proper including cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner. With the above observation, this application is disposed of . (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T