Dilip Ram v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17562 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1963 Year-2015 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria ====================================================== Dilip Ram Son of Uma Kant Ram, Resident of Village- Basgarha, P.S.- Forbesganj, District- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Kiran Devi, Daughter of Binod Ram & Wife of Dilip Ram, Resident of Village- Chanda Khaira, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ambika Bhagat For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI PRANAV KUMAR ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 30-11-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1963 C of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Vide order dated 28.06.2017 the matter was sent for mediation. From the Mediation Report kept at Falg- "M", it appears that the matter could not succeed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is still ready to keep the opposite party no. 2, however it is she who is not desirous of living with this petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submits that petitioner has solemnized second marriage and he being the husband of this opposite party no. 2 was very much

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17562 of 2017(6) dt.30-11-2017 2/2 responsible to maintain and keep her with full honour and dignity in which he failed. There is specific allegation of torture and assault against this petitioner for meeting out the demand of dowry. Lastly, the victim was ousted from her matrimonial home.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T