Dilip Mishra v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1831 of 2017 (2) dt.19-01-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1831 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -204 Year- 2015 Thana -MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMADHUBANI ====================================================== Dilip Mishra S/o- Ratneshwer Mishra R/o- village- Arer Dih Tole, P.S.- Arer, Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Ragini Kumari Mishra, D/o- Laln Kumar Jha, R/o-village- Barha, P.S.- Benipatti, Madhubani .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Nirmala Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned counsel for O.P. No.2. 2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint-cum-Protest Case No. 204 of 2015 arising out of Benipatti P.S. Case No. 54 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Accusation is of assault on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence in any manner. No occurrence has taken place as alleged in the F.I.R. Further, the parties are on litigating terms since 2011 and living separately. In fact, earlier the petitioner-husband has filed Divorce case No. 107 of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1831 of 2017 (2) dt.19-01-2017 2013 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is still pending. Earlier, complainant-wife has also filed a Mahila P.S. Case No. 77 of 2013 for alleged offence under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C, which is also pending and, now, again this case has been lodged by the wife against the husband and his family members only to harass the petitioner. This shows the wife is in habit of lodging case again and again for the same relief. The entire case appears to be an outcome of internal dispute between a husband and wife. No case under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. is made out against this petitioner. Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation made against the present petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 (Ten Thousand rupees only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M., Benipatti, Madhubani in connection with Complaint-cum-Protest Case No. 204 of 2015 arising out of Benipatti P.S. Case No. 54 of 2004, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

brajesh/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T