Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Thakur @ Sudhir Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18048 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-708 Year-2020 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== SUDHIR KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR THAKUR @ SUDHIR THAKUR Son of Ajay Thakur R/V- Mannipur, PS- Warisnagar, Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Chandani Kumari Wife of Sudhir Thakur, D/o Rajeshwar Sharma R/VMannipur, P.S- Warisnagar, Dist- Samastipur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Aprajita, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr.Parmanand Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-01-2025 In view of the averments made in jointness petition filed on behalf of petitioner, service of notice to opposite party no.2 is deemed to be validly served.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Despite valid service of notice, nobody appears for opposite party no.2.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 379, 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, opposite party no.2 was married with the petitioner on 26.4.2018. Later on, petitioner along with other family members committed torture on opposite party no.2 due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand. Accused persons snatched her ornaments and belongings and ousted her matrimonial house.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while denying the allegations, submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case because he is husband of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18048 of 2023(6) dt.29-01-2025 2/2 victim. However, he is ready to keep the victim in matrimonial house with honour and dignity. The case is triable by the Magistrate. The petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks from today, let this petitioner, as named above, be enlarged 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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in CR No. 708 of 2022/ Trial No. 2747 of 2022, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T