Prabhat Kumar Yadaw @ Prabhat Kumar @ Prabhat Kumar Yadav @Raju Yadav @ Raju Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33571 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2023 Thana- PURUSHOTTAMPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== Prabhat Kumar Yadaw @ Prabhat Kumar @ Prabhat Kumar Yadav @Raju Yadav @ Raju Kumar Yadav SON OF VIRVAHADUR YADAV @ BEER BAHADUR YADAV @ BIRBAHADUR YADAV R/O - Bharbharwa, P.S.- PURUSHOTTAMPUR, DIST- WEST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar BIHAR 2.
Sumitra Devi Wife Of Prabhat Kumar Yadaw @ Prabhat Kumar @ Prabhat Kumar Yadav @ Raju Yadav R/O Village- Bharbharwa, P.S.- Purushottampur, Dist.- West Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Purushottampur P.S. Case No. 115 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 5846 of 2023 dated 25.12.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the informant mentally and physically and ousted her from the matrimonial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33571 of 2024(2) dt.23-05-2024 2/3 home due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs and a vehicle as dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the informant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment 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." Learned counsel has further relied on the judgments 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. 3433 of 2023.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the allegation being general and omnibus against the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33571 of 2024(2) dt.23-05-2024 3/3 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/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Purushottampur P.S. Case No. 115 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 5846 of 2023, subject to conditions 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 bond of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled.
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) Ranjeet/- U T