Rohit Prakash @ Tinku v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28200 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1622 Year-2018 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rohit Prakash @ Tinku S/o- Late Vijay Kumar Gupta R/O at present - B 83,84,85 Pipal Bala Road ,Mohan Garden, Ps- Uttam Nagar New Delhi, P/AFakira Kha W.No-26, Ps- Laheriasarai Dist- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Shalni wife of Rohit Prakash @ Tinku, D/o- Ramchandra Prasad R/oAamgola Bramkumari Gali Po- Ramana Ps- kazi Mohammadpur DistMuzaffarpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Akbar Ali, APP Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case (C.R.) No. 1622 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379, 498A, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per prosecution case, allegation against this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28200 of 2024(6) dt.05-09-2024 2/3 petitioner is of matrimonial cruelty and demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is husband of opposite party No. 2 and has never assaulted and demanded any dowry. Petitioner is ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 18.03.2019 passed by Mahila Court02, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 19887 of 2017, the petitioner has been paying Rs. 12,000/- (twelve thousand) per month as maintenance to opposite party no. 2, and petitioner undertakes to pay the same regularly.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the fact that petitioner is paying Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) per month to the opposite party no. 2 and undertakes to pay the same regularly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of eight 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 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with Complaint Case (C.R.) No. 1622 of 2018, T.R.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28200 of 2024(6) dt.05-09-2024 3/3 No. 3994 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) utkarsh/- U T