Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 446 (PAT)

Manish Kumar v. State of Bihar

2016-04-20

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2016
JUDGMENT : AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in Khudaganj P.S. Case No. 89 of 2014 dated 27.06.2014 instituted under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Earlier by order dated 08.12.2014, the petitioner was granted provisional bail and the informant and his daughter were impleaded as opposite parties no. 2 and 3 and notices were issued. Pursuant to the same, opposite parties no. 2 and 3 have appeared through learned counsel. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are not true and that he is ready to keep the opposite party no. 3 with him. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 submits that due to the conduct of the petitioner and since she was ill treated and there was also constant demand of dowry despite the fact that after marriage, a tempo was also given to the petitioner by the opposite party no. 2, still be kept demanding for Rs. 2 lakhs due to which she was ousted which led to filing of the criminal case and thus she does not have the confidence to go and live with him again. 5. In view of the stand taken on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 and 3 before the Court which the Court found to be not misplaced, learned counsel for the parties were given opportunity on 06.04.2016 to work out an arrangement between them so that the matter could be amicably settled. Today, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 submits that she is agreeable for final settlement if the petitioner pays Rs. 2 lakhs. Learned counsel for the petitioner responding to the same submits that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the amount. The Court would note that neither there is any denial in the application nor it has been submitted that the petitioner does not possess a tempo and if that being a fact, the Court can only observe that the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 agreeing for only Rs. 2 lakhs as the amount for one time settlement is most reasonable. 6. 2 and 3 agreeing for only Rs. 2 lakhs as the amount for one time settlement is most reasonable. 6. Since the petitioner is not ready to accept the same and also in view of the fact that the allegations levelled do not appear to the Court that they are cosmetic and false, the Court is of the considered opinion that on merits, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 08.12.2014 stands cancelled. 8. The petitioner shall surrender before the Court below latest by 28th April, 2016. The Court below shall thereafter send a report to this Court with regard to the petitioner having surrendered. If the present order is not complied with, the Court below shall take all coercive measure to ensure that the petitioner is taken into custody and the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda shall be obliged to ensure that the directions of the Court below with regard to the petitioner being taken into custody are duly complied with expeditiously. 9. The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms. 10. Registry shall communicate the order to the Court below thought Fax also latest by tomorrow. 11. In case the Court below informs that the petitioner has not surrendered, the Registry shall place the matter before the Bench for necessary orders. Application disposed of.