Raju Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75008 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-524 Year-2023 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE District- Madhubani ====================================================== Raju Paswan Son of Suryadeo Paswan @ Surydev Paswan Resident of Village- Basopatti, P.S.- Basopatti, Dist.- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Ranjan Kumari D/O Chaudhary Paswan R/O Vill.- Narkatiya, P.O.- Madhiya, P.S.- Basopatti, Dist.- Madhubani.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the State :

Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Shailendra Kr. Jha, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-11-2025 None appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas learned counsel for the informant as well as learned APP for the State are in appearance.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with C.R. Case No. 524 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 406, 498(A), 354(B), 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.

3. It is a case of matrimonial dispute. The complainant is wife of the petitioner. She alleges atrocities by her husband and his family members for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ultimately she was ousted from her matrimonial house.

4. Vide order dated 20.08.2025, the matter was referred to the Patna High Court Mediation and Conciliation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75008 of 2024(6) dt.12-11-2025 2/2 Centre. The report dated 04.11.2025, received from the Mediation Centre, shows that the petitioner did not appear even on a single day before the learned Mediator, whereas opposite party no. 2 appeared continuously.

5. The conduct of the petitioner shows that with intent to harass opposite party no. 2, he is evading his appearance.

6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T