Satish Kumar Tiwary vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 849 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79168 of 2019
      Arising Out of Complaint Case No.-161 Year-2019 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE
                                         District- Rohtas
     ======================================================

Satish Kumar Tiwary (M), aged about 28 years, Son of Madan Tiwary, Resident of Village-Telari, PS-Chenari, District-Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Seema Devi, Wife of Satish Kumar Tiwary, Daughter of Kamlesh Pandey, Resident of Village-Telari, PS-Chenari, District-Rohtas at Sasaram, At present Address-Resident of Village, PO and PS-Sheosagar, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.

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

     For the Petitioner/s           :      Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate
     For the State                  :      Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP
     For the Opposite Party no. 2   :      Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 11-02-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, learned counsel for

the petitioner; Mr. Yogendra Kumar, learned Additional Public

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

Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.

2.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Complaint Case No. 161 of 2019 dated 19.02.2019, instituted

under Sections 498A/ 34, 323, 307, 379, 312, 504, 506, 384 of the

Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The opposite party no. 2, who is the wife of the

petitioner has filed the case alleging that soon after marriage on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79168 of 2019 dt.11-02-2021

11.06.2015, the accused started demanding cash of Rs. 5 lakhs and

one pakka house on one katha land at Sheosagar and on refusal,

they subjected her to cruelty and torture and also did not provide

food. It is further alleged that they did not allow her to meet her

parental family and in April, 2018, they forcibly got abortion done

and when her father came on 19.06.2018, the accused had

assaulted the complainant. It is also alleged that the father of the

opposite party no. 2 was kidnapped and threatened and under

coercion signature was taken on four plain papers with intention to

wrongly use it for appropriating the ornaments and clothes given

to the complainant from her parents' side and despite several

attempts, the accused did not give up their demand of dowry and

on 15.02.2019, when the complainant and other witnesses came to

the house, the accused persons did not allow them to enter the

house and on objection, the complainant was pushed on the earth

and attempt was made to strangle her but she was saved by the

witnesses for which she got treatment in Primary Health Centre at

Chenari.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

allegations are false and it is the opposite party no. 2 who has the

habit of leaving the matrimonial home. It was submitted that the

petitioner had filed Matrimonial Case No. 14 of 2019 before the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79168 of 2019 dt.11-02-2021

Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which was

withdrawn on 18.03.2019, on the assurance given by the

complainant's family. It was submitted that the petitioner has

again filed Matrimonial Case No. 270 of 2019 and that he is ready

to keep the complainant with dignity and respect.

6. Learned APP submitted that the fault appears to be on

the part of the petitioner and that is why Mediation has also failed.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2

submitted that during Mediation, there was talk of one-time

settlement and as per own showing of the petitioner, the landed

property he has and in view of the details of properties as

disclosed in the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.

2, there being sufficient land which would come in the share of the

petitioner, she was agreeable to payment of Rs. 50,000/- and

transfer of 3 kathas of land in favour of the opposite party no. 2.

8. At this juncture, when the Court called upon learned

counsel for the petitioner that since he has not replied or

controverted the property which would ultimately come in his

share, as has been disclosed in the affidavit filed on behalf of

opposite party no. 2, whether he was agreeable to a one-time Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79168 of 2019 dt.11-02-2021

settlement on such terms, learned counsel submitted that the

petitioner was not ready for the same.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further

submitted that the case for restitution of conjugal rights has been

filed by the petitioner after lodging of the present case which

clearly indicates that there was no real intention to keep the

opposite party no. 2 and only to create a defence, the same has

been done.

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

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

Court finds that the allegations levelled in the complaint with

regard to demand of dowry leading to torture and assault cannot

be said to be frivolous or unbelievable, at least for the present.

11. Thus, taking an overall view in the matter, the Court

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

13. The interim protection given to the petitioner under

order dated 11.12.2019, stands withdrawn.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T