Pankaj Kumar Rajak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85801 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-402 Year-2022 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar Rajak Son of Late Indradev Rajak, Resident of Village - Chaklalsaahi, P.S.- Tajpur, P.O.- Hilai, District - Samastipur, Bihar. Presently residing at Satyanarayan Building, Narawala Road, Line No. 02, Ulluwaadi, P.S.- Paltan Bazaar, District - Kaamroop, Assam. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Pooja Kumari Daughter of Ramesh Kumar Rajak, Resident of Village - Koylaam, P.S.- Kalayanpur, District - Samastipur, Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vikash Pankaj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-03-2024 Heard Mr. Vikash Pankaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with TR No. 2815 of 2022, arising out of Complaint Case No. 402 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 18.01.2024, the present matter was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85801 of 2023(3) dt.19-03-2024 2/2 referred to the Patna High Court Mediation Centre to settle the dispute between the parties.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 informs that the petitioner has never appeared before the learned Mediator, Patna High Court and due to the causal approach of the petitioner, mediation has failed between the parties.

5.

When the Court asked for the monthly maintenance to the Opposite Party No. 2, learned counsel for the petitioner refused the same and submits that he has no contact with the petitioner and he is not in a position to inform this Court regarding how much amount the petitioner has paid to the Opposite Party No. 2.

6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that neither the petitioner appeared before the learned Mediator nor he is ready to pay the maintenance amount to the Opposite Party No. 2, the present bail application stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T