Rakesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57612 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2023 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar S/o Rampravesh Yadav Resident of VillageSulemnapur, PS- Kako, Dist- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Phul Kumari W/o Rakesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, D/o Karu Yadav R/o vill - Doman Bigha, P.S.- Ghoshi (O.P. Okari), Distt.- Jehanabad ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Complaint Case No. 308 of 2023 registered for the offence/s punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 380, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the other co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 3,00,000/- as dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57612 of 2025(3) dt.04-11-2025 2/3 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is the husband of the complainant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. Learned counsel for 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 no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner.
6. 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 bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57612 of 2025(3) dt.04-11-2025 3/3 twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Jehanabad, in connection with Complaint Case No. 308 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), with further condition/s:- (i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled.
7. 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.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Jyoti/- U T