Vinay Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56399 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-498 Year-2022 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran ====================================================== Vinay Kumar Rai S/O Rajendra Rai R/O Village- Jahari Pakari Kewari Kala, Ps- Amnaur, Dist- Saran At Chapra (BIHAR) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Pramila Devi Wife Of Vinay Kumar Rai, Daughter Of Mishri Lal Rai Resident Of Village- Ganaura Hussepur Dabrapar, Ps- Amnaur, Dist- Saran At Chapra (BIHAR).

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramesh Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-12-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 498 of 2022 dated 07.03.2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and

2/4 the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the informant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner who is the husband of the informant. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. 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." Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 498A of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgments in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 and Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of

3/4 the bail petition.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Saran at Chapra in connection with Complaint Case No. 498 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. 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.

9. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Nilmani/- U

4/4