Dipu Dhobi @ Dipak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52975 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1345 Year-2022 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== DIPU DHOBI @ DIPAK KUMAR Son of Bali Dhobi @ Rambali Dhobi @ Rambali Ram Resident of village - Tiwari, P.O. - Hata, P.S. - Chainpur, Distt. - Kaimur at Bhabhua, Pin Code - 821106 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Lalita Devi Wife of Dipu Dhobi, D/o Bhola Dhobi Resident of village - Tiwai, P.O. - Chainpur, Distt. - Kaimur, at present residing at village - Lohra, P.O. - Adhaura, P.S. - Lohra, Distt. - Kaimur (Bhabhau) ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-10-2023 Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 when the matter is called.

2. Heard Mr. Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Kumar, learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1345 of 2022, dated 17.11.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Allegation against the petitioner is of demand of dowry and torture mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52975 of 2023(3) dt.09-10-2023 2/3

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the complaint petition is false and fabricated and the petitioner has never demanded any dowry from the family members of the complainant and he has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant.

6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhabhua (Kaimur) in connection with Complainant Case No. 1345 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions :-

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52975 of 2023(3) dt.09-10-2023 3/3 reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioner tamper with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T