Sumrendra Kumar Yadav @ Subrendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53303 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-384 Year-2007 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul ====================================================== Sumrendra Kumar Yadav @ Subrendra Yadav Son Of Mahabir Yadav R/OBalha, Tola-Makhanpatti, P.S.-Supaul, Distt.-Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sunita Devi Wife Of Sumrendra Kumar Yadav R/O-Balha, TolaMakhanpatti, P.S.-Supaul, Distt.-Supaul, Also At Sri Chandrashekhar Prasad Yadav, Village-Kavaiya, P.S. And Distt.-Supaul ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tanushri For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 31-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that earlier the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner and the petitioner along with co-accused used to torture the informant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53303 of 2023(3) dt.31-10-2023 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner is husband of the complainant due to which he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He has never demanded dowry from the complainant and still ready to keep his wife/complainant with full dignity and honour. A statement has been made in para-3 of the petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 17.4.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer of regular bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as custody of the petitioner, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 384C/2007 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Supaul.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Amandeep/- U T