Dismissed

Dilip Mandal @ Dilip Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC14 May 2024CR. MISC./7869/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Satyavrat Verma, in an oral order, rejects the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to appear but failed to do so, citing illness, which the O.P. No. 2 contested by arguing he did not inform counsel in advance. The Court refused privileges.

What did the court decide?

The present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

Dilip Mandal @ Dilip Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7869 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2023 Thana- AMDABAD District- Katihar

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Dilip Mandal @ Dilip Kumar Son of Ram Kishan Mandal R/o vill - Balrampur, P.S - Amdabad, Dist. - Katihar

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 14-05-2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶13

learned APP for the State along with learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.

¶14

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 498A, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶15

By order dated 02.05.2024, the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 were directed to remain physically present before this Court on 14.05.2024 along with their respective learned counsels.

¶16

Today, when the case is taken up, the O.P. No. 2 is present, but petitioner has not appeared.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was informed about the order dated

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7869 of 2024(4) dt.14-05-2024 2/2

¶19

02.05.2024 that he has been directed to appear on 14.05.2024, but today in the afternoon when the petitioner did not come to the Court, it is submitted that a call was made, on which he informed that he was ill.

¶20

The O.P. No. 2, who is present in the Court, submits that her husband works at Pune and that is the reason why he has not appeared. It is next submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that if the petitioner was ill, then he ought to have informed his learned lawyer much in advance so that an exemption application could have been filed, but then the same was not done which amply demonstrates that only an excuse has been made and the order of this Court has been flouted with impunity.

¶21

In view of the submission made by the O.P. No. 2, the Court is not inclined to extend to the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

8. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

¶23

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶24

Rishabh/-

¶25

U T

Dilip Mandal @ Dilip Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Mandal @ Dilip Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kishore Prasad Vs the State of Bihar

Tameshwar Yadav @ Taneshwar Yadav @ Temesjwar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sidhu Rai Vs the State of Bihar

Anarul Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Shambhu Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Sharvan Yadav Vs The State of Bihar