Sonu Kumar @ Ajeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36113 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2020 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Sonu Kumar @ Ajeet Kumar Son of Ramlal Rajak Resident of village - Saidpur Tola, Police Station - Salimpur, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Baby Kumari Daughter of Sri Shiv Narayan Rajak Resident of village - Naya Tola Birpur, Police Station - Jurawanpur, District - Vaishali. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Complainant : Ms. Kumari Pallavi, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 31-07-2024 Heard Dr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kumari Pallavi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Informant and Mr. Murli Dhar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection with Complaint Case No. 84 of 2020, dated 05.02.2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 493, 496, 406, 120B, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but the learned Court below has taken cognizance only under Sections 493, 406, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The short facts is that the complainant's marriage

2/4 was arranged with Sonu Kumar with condition that father of bride groom will be gifted Rs. 5,00,000/- cash, chain and other ornaments by the complainant's side. Thereafter, Sonu Kumar engaged in sexual relationship with complainant saying that they are about to get married and later on Sonu Kumar started demanding one motorcycle and also denied marrying with complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that the present complaint petition has been filed on 05.02.2020 and before that the petitioner has filed a Misc. Petition No. 11 of 2020 on 04.01.2020 before the learned court of A.C.J.M., Barh, Patna stating therein that the informant may file a false case against the petitioner and the allegation as alleged in the complaint petition is false and fabricated.

5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

3/4 case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Barh, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 84 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions :-

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

4/4 acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U