Sanjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8698 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-359 Year-2024 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Sanjit Kumar Son of Late Vijay Chauhan @ Late Vijay Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Jamauli, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP For the Informant :
Ms. Mukul Kumari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-03-2025 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mukul Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Obra P.S. Case No. 359 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 19.08.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant has fixed her daughter's marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner has taken money from her several times and later on refused to marry her daughter and also he is not giving her money back.
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the petitioner has received the amount from the informant to the tune of Rs. 2,07,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs seven thousand only) and as per allegation, the informant has given some more amount by way of cash. He further submits that on instruction, the petitioner is ready to return Rs. 2,07,000/- to the informant at the time of furnishing bail bond.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in connection with Obra
3/4 P.S. Case No. 359 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall furnish a demand draft of Rs. 2,07,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs seven thousand only) in favour of the informant and the same shall be deposited at the time of furnishing bail bond and the learned Court below is directed to hand over the said demand draft to the informant or the representative of the informant.
ii. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. iii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iv. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T