Sanjeev Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44310 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-951 Year-2023 Thana- SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE District- Saharsa ====================================================== Sanjeev Ram Son Of Kari Ram Village- Maina, Ps- Sonbarsa Raj, DistSaharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sabita Devi Wife Of Sanjeev Ram Village- Khadagpur (ramtola) PsSonbarsa Kachahari, Dist- Saharsa ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satish Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nagendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 17-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, learned APP the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Saharsa Complaint Case No. 951 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), of the Indian Penal Code and section 3⁄4 of the D.P.Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is of demanding dowry and torturing the O.P. NO. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation made in the complaint are not correct and as a matter of fact, the O.P.No.2 is a temperamental lady and she has voluntarily left the matrimonial house and is not interested to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44310 of 2024(3) dt.17-04-2025 2/3 stay with the petitioner. This fact would be evident from the bail rejection order wherein, she has stated that she is not ready to go to her Sasural. The complainant is not ready to go to the house of the petitioner as she feels not safe in the company of the petitioner.

5. Learned cousnel for the petitioner further submits that he has always been ready to keep the complainant with due dignity and honour and had expressed the same desire before the learned court below and also during the anticipatory bail proceeding.

6. Learned APP for the State oppose the bail application of the petitioner and point out that initially the complaint was lodged under section 307, 379 of the IPC besides section 498A to which the learned counsel for the petitioner responds that the cognizance in the present case has been taken only under section 498A and section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.

7. Considering all the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, in the event of his arrest/ surrender within a period of four weeks from today the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand)with two sureties of the like amount

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44310 of 2024(3) dt.17-04-2025 3/3 each to the satisfaction of the learned sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Saharsa in Saharsa Complaint Case No.951 © 2023 , subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in investigation/ trial.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) N.K/- U T