Inamul Haque v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.13581 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -110 Year- 2016 Thana -MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMADHUBANI ====================================================== Inamul Haque, Son of Nemtullah, Resident of village-Sakari, P.S. Sakari, District-Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar,

2. Talat Yeya, W/o Inamul Haque, R/v- Sakari P.S. Sakari, DistrictMadhubani, at present Talat Yeya, D/o Jeyaur Rahman, R/v-Tisi Narsam, P.S. Bisfi, District-Madhubani.

.... .... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Panchanand Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 110 of 2016/114 of 2016, registered under Sections 323, 341, 379, 498(A), 354(B) and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani.

The accusation is of torturing of the complainant by her husband and other in-laws due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and also removing her from matrimonial house after snatching her personal belongings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in presence of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13581 of 2017 (5) dt.24-07-2017 2/2 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, submits that while the matter was referred to Mediation Centre, Patna High Court for settlement of the dispute, but due to rigid behaviour of the petitioner, the dispute between the parties could not be resolved and mediation has failed.

The O.P No.2 is still ready to live with the petitioner. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T