Bikram Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67655 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-587 Year-2016 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul ====================================================== BIKRAM PASWAN Son of Jagdeo Paswan Resident of Village- Bhimnagar, P.S.- Bhimnagar, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Bindul Devi Wife of Bikram Paswan, Daughter of Bhuvneshwer Paswan Resident of Village- Kala Govindpur, P.S.- Bhimpur, District- Supaul. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr .Nityanand, APP For the Informant/s :

Mr. Pramod Mishra Mr. Suraj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

In view of the order dated 08.09.2022, the parties tried to reach an amicable settlement, but it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that the informant is not willing to settle the issue based on the offer made by the petitioner i.e., of Rs. 2 lakh. It is next submitted that the informant is about 28 years of age with a child and the expectancy of the life even presumed up till 60 years then also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67655 of 2021(6) dt.11-10-2022 2/2 the informant still has to live for number of years for which Rs. 2 lakh is a very meager amount, it is next submitted that petitioner also performed his second marriage despite being aware of the law that the marriage is void, but he is maintaining his second wife and is not willing to maintain the informant with dignity, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is willing to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards maintenance of the child, apart from Rs. 2 lakh which he had offered to the informant to which the learned counsel for the informant based on instructions is not agreeable. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Shivam/- U T