Sunil Ram v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.329 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -172 Year- 2015 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Sunil Ram, son of late Ram Bachan Ram, resident of village-Khanani Kalal @ Badaki Khanani, P.S.-Agion Bazar, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar &
2. Manorama Devi, daughter of Kedar Ram, wife of Sunil Ram, resident of village-Mani, P.S.-Vikram, District- Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Sri Abhay Kumar - 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 3/ 22-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State as well as counsel for the Opposite Party No2.
The Petitioner seeks bail in C.A. Case No.172 of 2015 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 323, 504, 506, 498-A Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Pursuant to the order dated 28.01.2017, the wifeOpposite Party No.2 is present. She has stated that since the petitioner has performed second marriage, it is not possible for her to live with him. She wants onetime settlement with the husband. She has stated that if the husband makes payment of rupees one lac and return her articles, she will settle the matter.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.329 of 2017 (3) dt.22-02-2017 2/3 Counsel for the petitioner submits that any talk can be possible only when the petitioner comes out of the jail. He submits that the petitioner will settle the matter with the Opposite Party No.2 after he comes out of the jail and prays that appropriate order be passed.
From the impugned order it appears that the petitioner is in custody since 03.10. 2016.
Since the wife herself has stated that it will not be possible for her to live with the husband, who has performed second marriage, this Court does not find any sense in mediating the matter any further through Mediation Centre or by itself. It will be proper for the petitioner to settle the matter with the wife and come to appropriate terms for proper settlement. In such circumstances, let the Petitioner, above named, be released on provisional bail for a period of six months to be calculated from the date of his release on furnishing bail bond of `10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, in connection with CA Case No.172 of 2015.
During the period of provisional bail, the petitioner will make efforts to settle the matter with the informant-wife and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.329 of 2017 (3) dt.22-02-2017 3/3 give proposal before the Court below. If the Court below finds that the both the parties have amicably settled the matter, it will confirm the provisional bail of the petitioner. It will be open to the Court below to extend the time in the event it finds that both the parties are sincerely making efforts to settle the matter and some more time is required by them for final settlement.
The application stands disposed off.
(Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T