Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Kr. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55057 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-352 Year-2020 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== ROHIT KUMAR @ ROHIT KR. SON OF RAMASHANKAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- BALAMMICHAK, INFRONT OF RAM PYARE COMMUNITY HALL, ANISABAD, P.S.- PHULWARISHARIF, DISTRICTPATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

JYOTI KUMARI WIFE OF ROHIT KUMAR @ ROHIT KR., D/O - RANJIT PRASAD @ JAWAHAR SAH R/O MOHALLA- BHATHA ROAD, P.S.- DANAPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State through virtual mode.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of eight weeks.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Complaint Case No. 352C of 2020 initially registered under Sections 498A & 406 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but later on, cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 498(A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is of committing torture upon the victim due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55057 of 2021(2) dt.29-10-2021 2/2 tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to petty family dispute. The petitioner is husband of the victim. 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.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the Complaint Case/F.I.R.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ms. Sharda, learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Danapur in connection with Complaint Case No. 352C of 2020 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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.

(Sudhir Singh, J) A.K.V.//- U T