Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35728 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jehanabad ====================================================== SONU KUMAR S/O SATYENDRA SINGH R/O VILLAGENARAYANPUR, P.S- KAKO, DISTT.- JEHANABAD. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
PRITY KUMARI D/O GURU KRIPAL SINGH R/O VILLAGE AND POST AND P.S- KARPI, DISTT.- ARWAL.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nityanand Neeraj, Adv.
For the State :
Ms. Rita Verma, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Navnit Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323/498(A)/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
3. Petitioner, who is husband of informant, is said to have tortured upon her physically and mentally in association of his family members over the dowry demand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the FIR are not correct and as a matter of fact, the petitioner has always been ready to keep his wife with due dignity and honour, but it is the informant who does not want to continue with the conjugal relationship. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35728 of 2024(7) dt.30-06-2025 2/3 submitted that the petitioner is a constable in the Indian Army posted at Chennai and he had never indulged in the demand of dowry and torture. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner bringing some photographs on record and also stating that the informant had taken away all her belongings including jewellery and had said that she has no complain by an application dated 01.07.2023.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant, however, oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail supporting the allegations levelled against the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been threatening the informant.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner makes an offer that the petitioner would make the payment of Rs. 3000.00/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month to the informant in the second week of every month for the sustenance of the informant.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35728 of 2024(7) dt.30-06-2025 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 29 of 2023, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
8. It goes without saying that the aforesaid payment shall be subject to any order being passed in matrimonial maintenance case or any other collateral proceedings.
9. Learned counsel for the informant is directed to furnish the bank account details of the informant in the learned Court below. If the informant fails to furnish the same, the aforesaid amount will be deposited in the learned Court below which will be released in favour of the informant after she furnishes her bank account details. If the petitioner fails to pay the aforesaid amount on two consecutive months and also in case the informant brings out any substantial or concrete evidence of the fact that the petitioner continues to indulge in threatening, she would be at liberty to move before the learned Court below for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. (Soni Shrivastava, J) divyanshi/- U T