Kanchan Mistry v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29003 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2018 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Kanchan Mistry Son of Late Suresh Mistry R/o Village- Lodipur Bara, P.S.- Kinjar, Dist.- Arwal ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rubi Devi D/o Ram Ayodhya Mistry, W/o Kanchan Mistry R/o Village and Post- Karpi, P.S.- Karpi, Dist.- Arwal ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Babu, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-08-2024 Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 14 of 2018 registered under Sections 498A, 323, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As per prosecution case, all the named accused persons including this petitioner tortured and harassed the complainant for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner happens to be husband of the complainant and present case has been lodged due to petty

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29003 of 2024(3) dt.13-08-2024 2/2 family dispute. There is general and omnibus allegation of commission of assault against him. It is further submitted that petitioner is ready to keep the complainant/opposite party no. 2, as his wife, with full honour and dignity. It is next submitted that the case is triable by the Magistrate. In this connection, petitioner has relied upon a 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.

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

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal in connection with Complaint Case No. 14 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) utkarsh/- U T