Dharvendra Singh @ Guddu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30307 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1081 Year-2022 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Dharvendra Singh @ Guddu, aged about 30 years, Male, S/o- Brijesh Singh, R/O Village- Nega Bigaha, P.S.- Madanpur, Dist- Aurangabad, A/P- Q. NoB67, P.S.- Katghora, Dist- Korwa Chhatisgarh. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Ritu Kumari, Wife of Dharmendra Singh, D/o- Rana Pratap Singh, R/oProfessor Colony, Ara, P.S.- Ara Nawada, Dist- Bhojpur. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1081 of 2022 dated 15.07.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and other co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfilment of demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- as dowry.

2/4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and he has no concern with the alleged offence. It is further submitted the opposite party no. 2 herself deserted the petitioner for no reason or the reason may be best known to her. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 in her solemn affirmation recorded at the back side of the complaint petition in paragraph no. 7 has categorically stated that now she does not want to live with her husband.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to settle the differences as stated in paragraph no. 11 of the bail petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments 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" and in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 and Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No (s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.

3/4 3433 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Section 498A) of the Indian Penal Code is triable by the Magistrate. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Complaint Case No. 1081 of 2022, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with further condition:- (I) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled.

4/4

7. If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of reconciliation or one time settlement.

8. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U.K./- U T