Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36840 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1472 Year-2021 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR SON OF LATE BISHNUDEV SAHNI @ LATE VISHUNDEV SAHNI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SARAIYA, P.S.- SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

LAKHO DEVI WIFE OF RAHUL KUMAR, D/O- LATE JIBACH SAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GIR, P.S.- HASANPUR, DISTRICTSAMASTIPUR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sandip Kumar Gautam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Singh Mr.Raj Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 02-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects within three weeks.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit in this case for correcting the address of the petitioner.

He is permitted to correct the address of the petitioner in the cause-title of the petition in course of day. Office is also directed to correct the address of the petitioner by adding Begusarai in place of Khagaria. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36840 of 2022(3) dt.02-11-2022 2/3 u/s 498(A), 406, 354(B), 34 of the IPC and sections 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Petitioner, who is husband of the informant, is said to have committed torture upon the informant in association of his family members on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ousted her out of the matrimonial house. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is an innocent person and has committed no offence. Petitioner has never made any dowry demand and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to grudge. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and he is ready and willing to keep his wife with full honour and dignity. 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.

In that view of the matter, let the petitioner, named above, in the event of his arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36840 of 2022(3) dt.02-11-2022 3/3 Complaint Case No.1472C of 2021, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Petitioner is ready to pay Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) per month to opposite party no.2 in the first week of every month, for her maintenance, as per the bank account details furnished by her in the learned Court below. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the aforesaid amount on two consecutive months, opposite party no.2 shall be at liberty to move before the learned Court below for cancellation of the bail bond of the petitioner. It goes without saying that the aforesaid payment shall be subject to any order passed in matrimonial maintenance case or any other collateral proceedings.

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.

Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T