Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43189 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2020 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== Manoj Kumar, aged about 41 years, Gender-Male, Son of Late Devendra Paswan, resident of Mohalla-Saifalaganj, Ward No. 21, P.S- Sasaram Town, District-Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sangeeta Kumari, Wife of Manoj Kumar, Resident of Village- Munji, P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : M/S. Jai Prakash Singh and Mrs. Arti Kumari, Advocates.

For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 21 of 2020 dated 09.01.2020 in which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and other co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant

2/4 mentally and physically due to non-fulfilment of demand of various articles and cash amount as dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and he has no concern with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the marriage between the parties took place in the year 2011 and the complainant herself deserted the petitioner and leave her matrimonial house. The petitioner is still ready to keep the complainant as his wife with full dignity and honour as stated in paragraph no. 10 of the bail petition. There is case and counter case between the parties. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments 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" and 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).

3/4 Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is triable by the Magistrate. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 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. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court concerned, Bikramganj, Rohtas in connection with Complaint Case No. 21 of 2020, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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

4/4 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) U.K./- U T