Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44231 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-408 Year-2019 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE District- Madhepura ====================================================== Manish Kumar, Son Of Manoj Yadav R/o- Village- Kewatgama Ward No.-14, P.S.- Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Sangita Kumari D/O Tarni Rai R/O Village- Purini Sarhadgati, Ward No.-6, P.S.- Srinagar, District- Madhepura ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conferencing. Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks.

In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 408 of 2019 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Allegedly, the petitioner who is the husband of the complainant, along with co-accused persons tortured and treated the complainant with cruelty on account of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-. They also tried to set the complainant on fire and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44231 of 2022(2) dt.18-11-2022 2/3 finally ousted her from their house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is only general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. The petitioner never demanded any dowry and never tortured the complainant. The reason for dispute is that the complainant has been putting pressure on the petitioner not to have any relationship with his family members and she has further been putting pressure on the petitioner to live at her matrimonial home. The petitioner is in custody since 23.05.2022 and the learned trial court has taken cognizance against the petitioner.

Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the period of custody of the petitioner, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in connection with Complaint Case No. 408 of 2019, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44231 of 2022(2) dt.18-11-2022 3/3 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below.

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Ashish/- U T