Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40643/2024bail granted

Nageshwar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-22Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40643 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2015 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== NAGESHWAR CHAUDHARY SON OF PARSHURAM CHAUDHARY R/O- VILLAGE- HETAMPUR, P.S.- TIYAR, DISTICT- BHOJPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Rohtas Complaint Case No. 274 of 2015 dated 13.05.2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of motorcycle and computer as dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40643 of 2024(4) dt.22-08-2024 2/3 that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner who is husband of the complainant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. 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. The petitioner is in custody since 02.04.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner abovenamed, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40643 of 2024(4) dt.22-08-2024 3/3 the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj (Rohtas) in connection with Rohtas Complaint Case No. 274 of 2015, with the condition:- (i) That 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 reconciliation or one time settlement.

8. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) shivam/- U T