Anand Madhav @ Shanu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44463 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2024 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Anand Madhav @ Shanu Son of Raghuvindar Kumar Singh Resident of village - Khabra, P.S.- Sadar, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 Heard Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel representing the informant as also Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned APP representing the State
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 376, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 08.02.2024 by the informant, Gudiya Kumari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that she went to Delhi to study Law in the year 2020, came in contact with this petitioner and on the pretext of marriage, they started living together for six months. When the informant told him about their marriage, the petitioner on the pressure of his parent left the informant. Later, they received message to pay
2/4 Rs. 10 Lakhs as dowry or no marriage will be performed. This led to the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the F.I.R. would show that whatever happened between them during the six months, it was consented. The allegation is of the year 2020, F.I.R. lodged in the year 2024. The F.I.R. is there, he do not have criminal antecedent and undertakes to face the trial diligently.
5. Learned counsel representing the informant submits that on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner made physical relationship with the lady and later, demanded money for tying nuptial knots.
6. Allegations are there. It dates back to the year 2020, F.I.R. however, came to be lodged in the year 2024. Both the petitioner and the lady are/were mature enough to know about the relationship they had. The lady as per the F.I.R. was pursuing Law and thus had better knowledge than that of a layman, thus this alibi that on the pretext of marriage, the relationship was established cannot be accepted. The lady being Law student was mature enough to know about the relationship. The petitioner has given an undertaking that he shall be diligently appearing in trial and this Court has also taken note of
3/4 the fact that he has no criminal antecedent, in that background, is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., as also with the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
4/4 criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds.
8. Nothing recorded in the order shall be taken up at the time of trial as the observations made herein is only in context of consideration of the anticipatory bail. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T