Vinod Kumar Arya v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81475 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2016 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Vinod Kumar Arya, Son of Late Siyaram Mehta Resident of VillageKhutahan, P.S.- Haspura, District- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Priyanka Kumari, Daughter of Satyendra Mehta and Wife of Vinod Kumar Arya, Resident of Village- Khutahan, P.S.- Haspura, District- Aurangabad and at present resident of Village- Dumuhan, P.O. and P.S.- Risiup, DistrictAurangabad. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Yugal Kishore, Advocate.
For the State :
Ms.Sharda Kumari, APP For the O.P.No. 2 Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-09-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State through Video Conferencing. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2016, registered under Sections 341, 323, 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that vide order dated 18.06.2020, on the joint prayer for the learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Patna High
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81475 of 2019(5) dt.09-09-2020 2/3 Court, Patna, for settlement of dispute in between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, who are husband and wife, as there is chance of settlement of dispute in between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, but at present, the Court is not functioning in physical mode due to pandemic of COVID-19. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submits that petitioner, who is the husband of opposite party no. 2, may be allowed pre-arrest bail provisionally with direction to the S.D.J.M., Aurangabad, to send the matter before the District Mediation Centre, Aurangabad, so that dispute may be settled in between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 amicably. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner is ready to keep his wife-opposite party no. 2 with full dignity and honour.
In view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party no.2, let the above named petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his surrender within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Aurangabad, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 34 of 2016, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81475 of 2019(5) dt.09-09-2020 3/3 of the Cr.P.C, for one year. The learned S.D.J.M., Aurangabad is directed to send the matter before the District Mediation Centre, Aurangabad, within two months for settlement of dispute in between petitioner and the opposite party no.2. If the matter is settled in between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, the learned S.D.J.M., Aurangabad shall confirm the provisional pre-arrest bail of the petitioner. In case the matter is not settled in between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 on the fault at the end the petitioner, the learned S.D.J.M., Aurangabad would be at liberty to cancel the provisional prearrest bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T