Amar Poddar @ Amar Kumar Poddar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17006 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Banka ====================================================== Amar Poddar @ Amar Kumar Poddar S/O Sachidanand Thakur MohallaSalepur Behind Balti Karkhana Chauk Shiv Mandir Maurya Nagar, Ps. Majahidpur, Dist. Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Nandni Devi D/O Nakiul Poddar Village- Kaushalpur, Ps. Amarpur, Dist. Banka.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
MS.Asha Devi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-10-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 342, 379, 498(A), 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act in connection with Complaint Case No.319 of 2022.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the office report dated 04.10.2024 it would manifest that both notices have been received by the mother of O.P. No.2. Since notices have been received by the mother of the O.P. No.2, as such it is deemed to have been validly served.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
2/4 petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant with an allegation that she was married to the petitioner on 11.11.2019, further out of the wedlock a child was born, thereafter, the accused persons including the petitioner kept her well for a year, but thereafter, they started demanding motorcycle and on account of nonfulfillment of the demand she was abused and tortured and was tied for seven hours inside the house, further petitioner even tried to strangulate her, but was saved by villagers, thereafter was ousted from her matrimonial home.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is also submitted that petitioner is still willing to keep the O.P. No.2 and the child with honour and dignity. It is further submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why the complainant is not willing to restitute her conjugal rights when from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the complaint, it would manifest that the same does not allege any serious allegations, rather allegations general, omnibus and ornamental in nature. It is also submitted that petitioner being husband is aware of his responsibility towards the O.P. No.2 and the child and is willing to pay a monthly maintenance of
3/4 Rs.5000/-, which shall commence from 14.10.2024. It is also submitted that may be with passage of time and on intervention of well wishers the parties may reconcile their dispute, but then no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail.
6. The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail application, but then fairly submits that since petitioner is willing to pay a monthly maintenance, as such no useful purpose would be served by sending him to jail and chances of future reconciliation will also get bleak.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Banka in connection with Complaint Case No.319 of 2022, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
8. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner does not pay the amount of maintenance as agreed for two consecutive months, in that event, the O.P. No.2 shall be at
4/4 liberty to file an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner.
9. The learned Trial court is directed to handover a copy of the order to the learned advocate representing the O.P. No.2 in the complaint for her perusal.
10.
It is made clear that the present maintenance shall stop if maintenance is fixed by a court of competent jurisdiction.
11.
The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Prakash Narayan U T