Santosh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 33344 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2019 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Yadav, aged about 32 years, Son of Rajendra Prasad Yadav Resident of Nauwagarhi Sharan Singh tola, P.S.- Muffasil, District - Munger ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kamal Kishore Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-11-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The Petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 136 of 2019 for the offence under sections 341, 323, 498(A), 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the initial stage has submitted that the petitioner is ready to stay with the opposite party no.2 whereas the opposite party no.2 is not ready to stay with the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that Maintenance Case No. 113 of 2019 is filed and the same is pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger is directed to conclude the Maintenance case finally within a period of three months from today and submit report about the maintenance case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner wanted to stay with his wife and efforts were made a number of times but the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 33344 of 2020(6) dt.23-11-2021 2/2 matrimonial relation could not be established between the parties.

In that view of the matter, it is very difficult for both the parties to stay together.

The opposite party no.2 has levelled serious allegation against this petitioner but the same is being denied by the counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation can only be verified in the trial and not at the stage of bail.

In that view of the matter, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. let the petitioner, named above, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 136 of 2019 subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Ravi/- U