Manish Thakur @ Manish Aryan @ Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32149 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Katihar ====================================================== Manish Thakur @ Manish Aryan @ Manish Kumar S/O Kailash Thakur Resident of village- Chandpur, PS- Gogari, District- Katihar (wrongly mentioned in Paragraph No. 1 of impugned order as District Katihar) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Patna 2.
Jyoti Kumari W/O Manish Thakur @ Manish Aryan @ Manish Kumar, D/O Birendra Thakur R/O Vill.- Dandkhora, P.s.- Dandkhora, Dist.- Katihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Bimal Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party :
Mr. Rina Sinha, APP For the O.P. No. 2 :
Md. Najmul Hodda, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 03/2023 dated 10.01.2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the informant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 10 lacs as dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32149 of 2025(3) dt.03-11-2025 2/3 There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner who is the husband of the informant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant. 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 submitted that Section 498A of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate. 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. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32149 of 2025(3) dt.03-11-2025 3/3 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Katihar in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 03/2023 subject to conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, 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 bonds of the petitioner are 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 reconcilation or one time settlement.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T