Purushottam Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 282 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 25343 of 2020
           Arising Out of PS Case No.-12 Year-2020 Thana- RASOOLPUR District- Saran
     ======================================================

Purushottam Kumar Pandey, Male aged about 31 years, Son of Vidya Sagar Pandey, Resident of Village-Pandey Chapra, PS-Rasoolpur, District-Saran, Chapra.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Kiran wife of Purushottam Kumar Pandey, Resident of Village-Pandey Chapra, P.S.-Rasoolpur, District-Saran, Chapra.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Ms. Abhanjali, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-01-2021

Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Upadhyay, learned

counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP')

for the State and Ms. Abhanjali, learned counsel for the opposite

party no. 2.

2. On 21.12.2020, after detailed hearing, the Court had

recorded that learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 had

submitted that one opportunity be given to her to ascertain the

factual background and the possibility of there being any chance Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25343 of 2020 dt.22-01-2021

of settlement between the parties and, thus, the Court had also

tried to facilitate such an exercise.

3. Pursuant to that, a supplementary affidavit has been

filed on behalf of the petitioner. However, no affidavit has been

filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

4. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Rasoolpur PS Case No. 12 of 2020 dated 28.01.2020, instituted

under Sections 498A and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. The allegation against the petitioner, who is the

husband of opposite party no. 2 is of mental and physical torture

and demand of dowry and also of trying to induce her to commit

suicide.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that right

from the beginning, the attitude of the opposite party no. 2 has not

been conducive to a smooth matrimonial relationship. It was

submitted that the opposite party no. 2 wanted the petitioner to

leave his parents and live with her but because the petitioner was

supporting and taking care of his old parents, he did not agree to

this due to which she started creating problems. It was submitted

that on 19.09.2019, when the petitioner was working at Delhi, he

submitted an Informatory Petition before the local police with Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25343 of 2020 dt.22-01-2021

regard to the opposite party no. 2 torturing him for almost 10

months that she was not satisfied with the marriage and forcing

him to give divorce and also threatening him and his family

members with dire consequences. Learned counsel submitted that

after losing all hope of reconciliation with the opposite party no.

2, he was forced to file Divorce Case No. 199 of 2019 on

25.09.2019, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at

Chapra. It was submitted that the opposite party no. 2 had moved

the Hon'ble Supreme Court for transfer of such petition to Delhi

and when the matter was sent for Mediation by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the effort failed and ultimately, the divorce suit

has been transferred to the Family Court at Dwarika in Delhi.

Learned counsel submitted that the conduct of the opposite party

no. 2 would be clear from the fact that not only does she threatens

and abuses the petitioner and his family members, but has also

sent threatening and abusive threats through WhatsApp to his

learned counsel, who conducts his case in the Court below. In this

regard, he drew the attention of the Court to Annexure-2 series,

which includes copies of such messages which disclose abusive

language and also threat by the opposite party no. 2 to the learned

counsel for the petitioner in the Court below. Learned counsel

submitted that on 21.12.2020 also, he had brought to the notice of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25343 of 2020 dt.22-01-2021

the Court that the opposite party no. 2 had also obtained his

mobile number and had sent threatening and abusive messages to

him which has been noted by the Court in its order dated

21.12.2020. Learned counsel submitted that though the opposite

party no. 2 claims to have come to the house of the petitioner on

24.12.2020, but this was despite having being fully aware that

nobody was available in the house and only the elder sister of the

mother of the petitioner was present and along with the police and

some local media persons, she had broken open the lock of the

room in which her stuff was lying and taken away everything,

information of which has been sent by registered post to the

Superintendent of Police, Saran and also to the local police

station. Learned counsel submitted that while going back, she has

written abusive language on the wall of his house, especially with

regard to the mother of the petitioner, calling her a thief, which

has been brought on record by taking a photograph and is at

Annexure 2 of the supplementary affidavit filed by him. Learned

counsel submitted that in such background, clearly the conduct

and attitude of the opposite party no. 2 discloses that there is

hardly any scope for reconciliation and even after the Court

granting indulgence to her on the plea of her counsel that they

would try for settlement, her conduct after that and continuing Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25343 of 2020 dt.22-01-2021

with offensive and abusive language, including threat to the

family members of the petitioner, clearly proves that she is at fault

and the petitioner and his family members have been falsely

implicated to wreak vengeance. It was submitted that the opposite

party no. 2 is living and working at Bombay and is levelling false

and wild allegations against the petitioner and his family

members.

7. Learned APP submitted that the Court had granted

indulgence to the opposite party no. 2 by granting an opportunity

for taking steps towards settlement but the same appears to have

been frittered away by the opposite party no. 2.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2

submitted that the petitioner has tried to divert the issue by

showing only the conduct of the opposite party no. 2 and not his.

It was submitted that even the messages brought on record are

only what she has sent but not what was received by her. On a

query of the Court as to why such facts have not been brought on

record when she has already appeared in the matter and sufficient

time was granted and further what right or business the opposite

party no. 2 had to communicate with learned counsel for the

petitioner in the lower Court and threaten him, as he was not a

party and only a counsel performing his duty, learned counsel Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25343 of 2020 dt.22-01-2021

could not give any reply. However, she submitted that the opposite

party no. 2 had come from Delhi to Chapra but there was nobody

there to receive her at the station and only next morning, she had

gone with the police to her house and she had only taken back her

belongings. At this juncture, when the Court again called upon her

know why she had gone there without ascertaining that the family

members were there, as on oath in the supplementary affidavit, it

has been stated that all the persons were away from Chapra on

some work and only the elder sister of the mother of the petitioner

was present, again learned counsel could not give any reply.

Learned counsel submitted that whatever may have happened, she

is still ready to live with the petitioner.

9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

is of the opinion that a case for grant of pre-arrest bail has been

made out.

10. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender

before the Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner

be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-

(twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each

to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Chapra in Rasoolpur PS Case No. 12 of 2020 subject to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25343 of 2020 dt.22-01-2021

conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. Further, (i) one of the bailors shall be a close

relative of the petitioner and (ii) the petitioner shall cooperate in

the case. Failure to cooperate shall also lead to cancellation of his

bail bonds.

11. It goes without saying that the Court has not

expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter,

which shall be gone into by the trial Court, in accordance with

law, without being prejudiced by the present order.

12. Let the main application supported by affidavit be e

filed by learned counsel for the petitioner, if already not done,

latest by day after tomorrow.

13. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T