Roshan Kumar @ Roshan Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21683 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2020 Thana- LAUKAHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Roshan Kumar @ Roshan Kumar Yadav Son Of Raj Kumar Yadav R/OSingrahi, P.S.-LAUKAHI, Distt.-MADHUBANI ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rinku Devi Wife Of Roshan Kumar @ Roshan Kumar Yadav R/O-Singrahi, P.S.-LAUKAHI, Distt.-MADHUBANI, Presently Residing At Singrahi, Daughter- Mohan Yadav, P.S.-LAUKAHI, Distt.-MADHUBANI ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jitendra Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Udeshya Kr. Yadav, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 04-04-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case no. 9 of 2020 registered under sections 498A, 354A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that she was married to the petitioner in the year 2018. Soon thereafter the accused persons including the petitioner started to physically and mentally torture her and also asking for Rs. 5,00,000 in cash and a motorcycle. The informant further states
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21683 of 2024(2) dt.04-04-2024 2/3 that the accused used to insist upon her establishing illicit relations with other family members. She was not given food and even in the Panchayat organized, the accused were not ready to appear before it.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R are false and concocted. The petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2023 and has no criminal antecedent. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that there is direct and material evidence against the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the informant. The application be rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R, the petitioner having remained in custody for 5 months since 28.10.2023, not having any criminal antecedent and charge-sheet having been submitted in the case, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case no. 9 of 2020, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21683 of 2024(2) dt.04-04-2024 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjarpur, Madhubani.
(Partha Sarthy, J) Harsh/- U T