Arunjay Das @ Arunjay Kumar Das @ Karu Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20207 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-519 Year-2014 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Arunjay Das @ Arunjay Kumar Das @ Karu Das Son Of Bhagwan Das Resident Of Village - Chhatarpur Bara, P.S. - Chhatarpur, Dist.- Palamu ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Anita Devi D/O Manikchand Das Resident Of Village - Saidabad, P.S. - Pali, Distt. - Jehanabad ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Paras Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms/Mrs. Meena Singh, A.P.P.

Mr. DK Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and opposite party no.2.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner was married to opposite party no.2 on 18.5.2005. Thereafter, petitioner started torture on opposite party no.2 for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier petitioner was granted provisional bail by a bench of this Court vide order dated 27.4.2016, passed in Cr.Mis.No. 18268 of 2016 which was to be confirmed by the Court below on resolving the matrimonial discord. Later on, petitioner was granted divorce decree vide judgment dated 28.2.2017. opposite party no.2 filed Cr.Misc Case no.9/2018 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamu for revocation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20207 of 2023(4) dt.16-01-2025 2/2 of judgment which ws dismissed on merit vide order dated 3.12.2019. Thereafter, provisional bail earlier granted to the petitioner was cancelled on 16.9.2021 by the court below. Petitioner wants to resolve the matrimonial dispute but opposite party no.2 is not ready to live with the petitioner. 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. Learned counsel for the State and opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for bail. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no.2 has three children.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the petitioner was earlier granted provisional bail by a bench of this Court vide order dated 27.4.2016, passed in Cr.Mis.No. 18268 of 2016 which was to be confirmed by the Court below on resolving the matrimonial discord, in the event of arrest or surrender within eight 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jehanabad or successor court in Complaint Case No. 519/2014, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Shashi (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) U T