Ravindra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4205 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32043 of 2020
           Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
     ======================================================

Ravindra Kumar Singh, Son of Shaligram Singh, gender-male, aged about 37

years, Resident of Village - Umedpur, PS - Brahmpur, District - Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Mona Singh, wife of Ravindra Singh, Daughter of Anand Kumar Singh, at

present residing near Narayani Dharmkanta, Baruachak, PO Jhauganj, PS

Mehadiganj, Patna City, Patna.

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

     For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms. Anju Mishra, Advocate
     For the State            :       Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 1, APP
     For the OP No. 2         :       Mr. Girish Singh, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Ms. Anju Mishra, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 1, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and

Mr. Girish Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Patna City Mahila PS Case No. 53 of 2019 dated 11.06.2019

corresponding to GR Case No. 4734 of 2019, instituted under

Sections 341/323/498A/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32043 of 2020 dt.21-08-2021

4. The petitioner is the husband of the informant-

opposite party no. 2 and the allegation is that there was abuse and

the wife and three children were turned out of the matrimonial

home.

5. On 08.03.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner had

taken a stand that he was ready to keep the opposite party no. 2

and his three daughters with him. The Court, thus, had issued

notice to the opposite party no. 2 and had granted interim

protection to the petitioner.

6. On 29.06.2021, the opposite party no. 2 took a stand

that she was also ready to go and live in the matrimonial home and

with consent, 18th July, 2021 was the date fixed when the petitioner

was to come to the house of the opposite party no. 2 at Patna and

take her to the matrimonial home. The matter was adjourned for

2nd August, 2021 and affidavit was required to be filed, both by the

petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 with regard to the exercise

having been completed and also status of the relationship. The

same not having been done, the Court had imposed cost of Rs.

5,000/- on both the parties and the next date was fixed for today.

However, by way of indulgence, it was observed that if the

affidavit was filed by 5th August, 2021, the concerned parties

would not be required to deposit the cost. Today, affidavit has been Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32043 of 2020 dt.21-08-2021

filed by the father of the opposite party no. 2 in which it has been

stated that his daughter was taken by the petitioner to the

matrimonial home. It is further stated that he could not talk to his

daughter and further that his attitude was not proper and finally on

11.08.2021, the petitioner had sent back his daughter to her

parents' house. However, cost of Rs. 5,000/- has not been

deposited.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she

has been regularly trying to get in touch with the petitioner but

despite the ring going her call has not been picked up by the

petitioner. Learned counsel fairly submitted that the petitioner is an

advocate and it is expected that he would act responsibly, but his

conduct of not responding to the calls from the counsel as also

non-compliance of the order of the Court, is not proper.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

finds that the allegations made in the FIR of torture and abuse by

the petitioner cannot be brushed aside as false and concocted more

so, in light of his conduct when he has sent back the opposite party

no. 2 back to the matrimonial home and has further not bothered to

respond to the calls made by his counsel to him and also of not

having complied with the specific directions of the Court. Thus, on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32043 of 2020 dt.21-08-2021

an overall circumspection of the matter, the Court is not inclined to

grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

10. As far as not depositing of cost by the opposite party

no. 2 is concerned, in the special facts and circumstances of the

case, the Court is inclined to waive the same. Thus, she would not

be required to deposit the cost.

11. However, having regard to the conduct of the

petitioner as noticed above, he is directed to deposit cost of Rs.

20,000/-, in the same terms as was directed in order dated

02.08.2021. The same be done latest by 18 th September, 2021 and

receipt showing the same shall be filed in the Registry by the

petitioner latest by 22nd September, 2021.

12. Though the petitioner himself is an advocate and has

filed the case, it can be safely presumed that he is aware of the

proceedings as all the orders are on the internet, but still learned

counsel for the petitioner shall also communicate the order to him,

and if he does not pick up the phone she may message/text him

with regard to the order so that the same is strictly complied with.

13. The main petition stands disposed of. However, if

cost of Rs. 20,000/- is not deposited and receipt filed by the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32043 of 2020 dt.21-08-2021

petitioner within the time fixed by the Court, Registry shall place

the matter before the bench for necessary orders.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T