IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8907 of 2010 ==================================================== SHYAM DASS, Son of Late Sobhit Dass, Resident of village – Inaiya, P.s. Nawkothi, District Begusarai - Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Munni Devi, wife of Shyam Das, Resident of village – Inaiya, P.S. Nawkothi, District Begusarai Opposite Parties ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Pramod Manbansh, Advocate ---- ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ------- 24 06.07.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not giving him instruction anymore, thus, he is not in a position to say as to whether the notice issued under Dasti process has been served upon the opposite party no. 2 or not. By the order dated 18.3.2010 petitioner was permitted to implead the complainant as opposite party no. 2. Provisional bail was granted to the petitioner and notice was directed to be issued upon opposite party no. 2 under both, the ordinary process as 2 well as under registered cover. Though the process server reported that the opposite party no. 2 has refused to accept the notice issued under ordinary process, however, this Court, not being satisfied with that due to the reason that while impleading the complaint, the petitioner has given her address same as that of the petitioner, awaited for report with regard to service of notice under registered cover. Thereafter, the office reported that neither undelivered registered cover nor the acknowledgement card has been received. Then the Assistant Solicitor General of India was requested to look into the matter and get a report filed as to whether the said notice under registered cover has been served upon the opposite party no. 2 or not. Eventually an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Postal Department stating therein that notice has actually been received by the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 who happens to be one of the co- accused in the complaint petition. In view of the aforesaid facts, since one of the persons who has been made accused in the complaint case filed under Section 498 A of the Indian 3 Penal Code had accepted the notice for opposite party no. 2, the service of notice was not accepted as valid. Notice was directed to be issued under dasti process. In the order dated 11.08.2010, it stands recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that the complainant – opposite party no.2 still lives in the house of the petitioner and he will file an affidavit along with other documents to show the service of notice upon opposite party no. 2, which was directed to be issued by the aforesaid order by Dasti process. However, from the order dated 15.9.2010, it appears that subsequently an affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner that despite approaching several times, the opposite party no. 2 flatly refused to receive the same though she is still living in the house of the petitioner. Then again notices were issued upon opposite party no. 2 under ordinary as well as registered process including the address of her parents. Meanwhile, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner was extended time to time. Somehow or the other again notices could not be served and again steps for fresh service of notice upon correct and 4 present address was ordered on 9.12.2010. However, in view of the fact that notice could not be served upon the opposite party no.2 to the satisfaction of the Court, on 13.4.2011, upon prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner a chance was given to him again for service of notice by dasti process. However, now stand has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner after taking the requisites for service of notice under dasti process, he has failed to return back to swear affidavit. Matter was adjourned on 29.6.2011. Today also learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not come as yet and has stopped giving any instruction to him now. Aforesaid act of the petitioner goes to show that after taking the privilege of provisional bail he does not want the proceeding to be concluded specifically upon appearance of the complainant. Despite the statement made on his behalf that the complainant still resides with the petitioner, even notice under dasti process could not be served. Thereafter, the petitioner has stopped giving instruction to his counsel. 5 In above view of the matter and conduct of the petitioner, this Court does not have any option than to dismiss this application. As a result, this application is dismissed. The provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 18.3.2010 is hereby cancelled. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court concerned forthwith or else the court concerned would be entitled to take proper steps so that the petitioner may be brought to the door step of justice. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)