Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30046/2024bail granted

Ramesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-26Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30046 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2021 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== RAMESH SINGH S/O TULSI SINGH @ TULSI R/O VILL- 1544/D PLANT DIPO COLONY, P.S- MUGALSARAI, DISTT.- CHANDAULI. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

VARSHA DEVI D/O BINOD KUMAR SINGH, W/O RAMESH SINGH R/O VILLAGE- DARIHAT, P.S- DARIHAT, DISTT.- ROHTAS. PERMANENT ADD- 1544/D PLANT DIPO COLONY, P.SMUGALSARAI, DISTT.- CHANDAULI. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-10-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 427, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, being husband, has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the O.P. No. 2. It is also submitted that the case was referred for mediation, but then the mediation failed. It is

2/4 further submitted that the relationship in between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 has soured to an extent where it is not possible to revive the conjugal relationship, but then it is submitted that O.P. No. 2 is staying in the house of the petitioner, it is next submitted that petitioner, as husband, is aware of his responsibilities. It is also submitted that presently though O.P. No. 2 is staying with the petitioner in his house but are not on talking terms, but then petitioner takes care of all her needs. It is further submitted that may be in future, the parties may resolve their dispute. It is next submitted that petitioner, as husband, is aware of his responsibilities and based on instruction, it is submitted that petitioner will pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the O.P. No. 2 which shall commence from 11.11.2024.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 also does not dispute the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that O.P. No. 2 is residing in the house of the petitioner, but then submits that they are not on talking terms. It is fairly submitted that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail when petitioner is willing to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the O.P. No. 2. It is also submitted that may be with passage

3/4 of time and on intervention of well wishers, the parties may resolve their dispute.

5. It is further submitted that he will Whatsapp the bank account number of the O.P. No. 2 on the Whatsapp number of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner undertakes to communicate the same to the petitioner so that the monthly maintenance, as agreed, commences from 11.11.2024.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint Case No. 142 of 2021 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. However, it is made clear that the O.P. No. 2 shall be at liberty to file an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in the event if the petitioner does not deposit/give the amount of

4/4 monthly maintenance, as agreed, for two consecutive months.

8. It is further made clear that the present maintenance will stop, if the maintenance is fixed by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

9. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T