Juhi Praveen @ Juhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29044 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-361 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJEKALA District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Juhi Praveen @ Juhi Wife of Md. Shaukat @ Md. Shoukat @ Saukat Resident of Mohalla- Shah Ki Imli, Mazar Ke Samne, Jinnati Masjid, Police Station- Khajekalan, District-Patna (Bihar).

2.

Md. Shaukat @ Md. Shoukat @ Saukat Son of Late Murtuja Resident of Mohalla- Shah Ki Imli, Mazar Ke Samne, Jinnati Masjid, Police StationKhajekalan, District-Patna (Bihar). 3.

Muskan Praveen @ Muskan Parween Daughter of Md. Shaukat @ Md. Shoukat @ Saukat Resident of Mohalla- Shah Ki Imli, Mazar Ke Samne, Jinnati Masjid, Police Station- Khajekalan, District-Patna (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Akash Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Parijat Karan, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant : Ms. Shifa Khan, Advocate Ms. Shivani Roy, Advocate Mr. Manas Raj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. In the present case, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 361 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2/4

3. As per prosecution case, the informant was married with co-accused Md. Rafique and the petitioners are parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant. The allegation against the petitioners and other co-accused persons is that they used to demand Rs.Two lakhs as dowry and on non-fulfillment of the demand, they used to assault the informant and drove her out from their house.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners have not demanded any dowry and never tortured the informant and the son of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 was a love marriage without the consent and approval of the petitioners and the petitioners have been living separately from the informant and her husband since the very beginning of their matrimonial life. Since they have been residing separately, there was no question of day-to-day interference or committing cruelty by the petitioners. Much before the institution of the present FIR, petitioner no. 1 has already filed informatory petition before the learned ACJM-I, Patna City bearing Informatory Petition No. 2304 of 2025 apprehending false implication. Learned counsel further submits that, moreover, the allegations are non-specific, general and omnibus. The

3/4 petitioners are having clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant lived peacefully for sometime in her matrimonial home and thereafter, driven out from her matrimonial home and the petitioners assaulted the informant in her rented house and thereafter, the husband of the informant absconded leaving her behind.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the completely doubtful nature of allegation against the petitioners and possibility of false implication, let the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court concerned within a period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna City/concerned court in connection with Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 361 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. and other following conditions :

4/4 (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.

(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- U T