IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11110 of 2010 DEEPAK KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR with Cr.Misc. No.12997 of 2010 PARDEEP KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioners Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For O.P. no.2 : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, A.P.P. --------- 3 5.5.2010 Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution for offences under section 498 A, 307, 406 and other allied offence of Indian Penal Code as also under section 3/ 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, accused Deepak Kumar (petitioner in Cr. Misc. 11110 of 2010) is the husband of the complainant and accused pradeep Kumar (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 12997 of 2010) happens to be her Devar. The complainant was married on 25.4.2008 with petitioner Deepak Kumar and only after some time in the same year the specific allegation of demand of dowry by way of various articles as detailed in the complaint petition is against the petitioner. The petitioners are said to have committed torture on the complainant. There is serious allegation against petitioners that they poured K. oil on the body of the complainant and an attempt was made to put her on fire, but due to arrival of some neighbours her life could be saved where-after she succeeded in returning to her parents house. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the allegations are false and concocted one and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to have the privilege of anticipatory bail. When the matter was heard on 27.4. 2010 a stand was taken by the parties that there are - 2 - possibilities of settlement of entire dispute between the parties either by way of restoration of matrimonial relationship or by way of one time settlement of entire dispute by making payment of maintenance and other lawful dues to the complainant by the petitioners. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 27.4.2010 both the petitioners as also the complainant are physically present in the court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsel. However, it has been informed to the court that despite the endeavour compromise could not be arrived at. The complainant is not prepared to go back to her matrimonial home and she has reasonable apprehension that her life may be under risk in view of her past experience at her matrimonial home. The petitioners are not prepared to have one time settlement of entire dispute with the complainant by making payment of her lawful dues. Be that as it may, in view of serious nature of allegation against the petitioners who allegedly attempted to done away with the life of the complainant, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioners of both the cases must surrender in the court below in connection with complaint case No. 2836C of 2008 within a period of four weeks from today and, if so advised, may seek regular bail. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman