Dhananjay Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51222 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria ====================================================== Dhananjay Chaudhary Son Of Harilal Chaudhary R/O-Ramu Tola Bairkh Koshkapur, P.S.-Raniganj, Distt.-Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Pano Devi Daughter Of Maheshwar Chaudhary R/O-Naki, P.S.-Falka, Distt.- Katihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana,Advocate For the State :

Mr.Parmanand Prasad,APP For the O.P.2 :

None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. Despite valid service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner, husband of the opposite party no. 2, apprehends his arrest in a complaint case puishable for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with this petitioner in the year 2013 and it is alleged that after the marriage, petitioner along with other family members committed torture to the opposite party no. 2 due to non-fulfillment of demand of motorcycle and cash of Rs. Two lacs, as additional dowry, and lastly, the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial home by the accused persons after snatching her jewelleries.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51222 of 2023(3) dt.07-05-2024 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while denying the allegations made in the complaint petition, submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely because he is husband of the opposite party no. 2. However, he is ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 in her matrimonial house with full honour and dignity. Moreover, the case is triable by the Magistrate. The petitioner has further 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.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, let this petitioner, as named above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Araria in connection with Complaint Case No. 62-C of 2022, subject to the conditions, as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T