Virmani Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3817 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-373 Year-2023 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE District- Nalanda ====================================================== Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar R/V Khiri Chak, P.S- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Lalita Devi W/O Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar, D/O Ram Chandra Yadav R/O Village- Kotara, P.S- Sarmera, Distt.- Nalanda. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19122 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-373 Year-2023 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE District- Nalanda ====================================================== Virmani Yadav S/o- Rameshwar Yadav R/V- Khirichak PS-Asthawan DistNalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Lalita Devi W/o- Rahul Yadav, D/o- Ramchandra Yadav Village- Kotra PsSarmera Dist- Nalanda ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3817 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, APP For the Complainant :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Adv.

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19122 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP.

For the Complainant :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 26-06-2025 As both these bail applications have arisen from the same police station case number, hence, with consent of parties, they

2/4 are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APPs for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

3. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 379, 495, 496, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The instant case arises out of the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2, wife of petitioner Rahul Yadav, alleging therein that there was demand of Rs. 2 lacs and the consequent torture upon her.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are husband and father-in-law of the complainant, respectively and the allegations made in the complaint are wrong. As a matter of fact, petitioner Rahul Yadav had always been ready to keep his wife with due dignity and honour, but it is the complainant who did not want to stay in her matrimonial house and filed a maintenance case wherein an order for payment of Rs. 4000/- per month to the complainant was passed and in compliance of the same, initially petitioner Rahul Yadav tried to pay Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant, but could not continue to pay the amount of maintenance since he is to meet the expenses of his ailing

3/4 father. It is also submitted that there is no specific allegation against petitioner Virmani Yadav, who is father-in-law of the complainant and he had no connection with the alleged occurrence.

6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners makes an offer that petitioner Rahul Yadav would pay an amount of Rs. 4000/- per month to the complainant as has been fixed in Maintenance Case No. 74M of 2019 vide order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the Family Court, Nalanda, Biharshariff.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 373C of 2023, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

9. However, it is made clear that if petitioner Rahul Yadav

4/4 fails to pay the aforesaid amount on two consecutive months, the complainant shall be at liberty to move before the learned Court below for cancelling the bail bonds of the petitioner Rahul Yadav.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) divyanshi/- U T