Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19900/2025bail granted

Ramakant Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-03Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19900 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-425 Year-2024 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== Ramakant Singh S/o Ram Suresh Singh R/o Village- Chilaharua, PS- Dinara, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Priyanshu Kumari W/o Ramakant Singh, D/o Rajendra kumar Rai R/o vill and P.O. - Barki Akorhi, P.S.- Kargahar, Distt.- Rohtas ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nagendra Upadhyay, Adv.

For the informant : Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Complaint Case No. 425/2024 dated 29.04.2024 registered for the offences punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the informant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ousted her from the matrimonial home.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

2/6 There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. It is the further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the informant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant. 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. The dispute between the parties has resolved amicably on 19.09.2025 through the process of the Mediation Proceeding on the following terms and Conditions :-

1. That after great persuasion both the parties agreed to live separately and for this the Petitioner (Ramakant Singh) offered to pay Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees

3/6 Eight Lakhs Only) along with ornaments as full and final settlement amount to the Opposite Party No.2 (Priyanshu Kumari). Opposite party No.2 accepted the offer and gave her consent.

2. That the petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 agreed to pay the aforesaid settlement amount in the sum of Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) in two installments in following manner:-(A) The Petitioner (Ramakant Singh) has paid first installment of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) on 22.08.2025 through Demand Draft No.102101, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Bhuawal, Rohtas (Bihar) and 2nd installment of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) on 17.09.2025 through Demand Draft No. 102102, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Bhuawal, Rohas (Bihar) along with ornaments

4/6 and articles. The aforesaid amount and the ornaments/articles has already been received by the Opposite Party No.2 namely, Priyanshu Kumari.

3. That both the parties have agreed to file the mutual divorce petition in terms of Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram within two weeks after disposal of the Criminal Miscellaneous No.19900 of 2025.

4. That both the parties have further agreed to withdraw respective cases Civil/Criminal in nature filed against each other in the light of settlement of dispute soon after filing of the mutual divorce petition. In that view of the matter, Opposite party No.2 (Priyanshu Kumari) shall withdraw Complaint Case No.425 of 2024 pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

5/6 Rohtas at Sasaram. It is clarified that both the parties have also agreed not to file Civil/Criminal Case against each other in future.

5. This settlement shall be full and final settlement and no party shall claim in future against each other, in any manner.

6. That both the parties agreed to file mutual consent divorce case under section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram as mentioned above and after that both the parties are free to lead their life as per their own will.

7. That the above contents of the agreement have been read over and explained to us in Hindi which are have fully understood and accepted there upon.

8. That in the above terms and

6/6 conditions the present settlement has been arrived at between the parties and both parties have signed in presence of their learned counsels, who have also put their signature on this agreement.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have supported the facts of settlement between the parties.

6. 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. 425/2024, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. The application stands allowed.

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