Bipin Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22566 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1090 Year-2022 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District- Rohtas ====================================================== Bipin Ram Son of Late Sakhichand Ram Resident of Village-Dhankadha, P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Chanda Kumari W/o Bipin Ram Address at Present, Village-Dhankadha, P.S.-Sasaram, Dist.-Rohtas.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-04-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1090/2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22566 of 2024(2) dt.23-04-2024 2/3 2 lacs as dowry.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner who is husband of the complainant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. Learned counsel has submitted that this complainant case has been lodged after the completion of 30 years of marriage. The petitioner has 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." Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 498A of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgments in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 and Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22566 of 2024(2) dt.23-04-2024 3/3

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with Complaint Case No. 1090/2022 subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the Court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of reconcilation or one time settlement.

9. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T