Manoj Yadav @Manoj Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58699 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1929 Year-2022 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia ====================================================== Manoj Yadav @Manoj Kumar Yadav Son of Dasrath Yadav Resident of Jalalgarh, P.S. - Jalalgarh, District - Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rinki Devi Wife of Manoj Kumar Yadav D/o Suryanand Yadav R/o Jalalgarh, P.S. - Jalalgarh, Dist. - Purnea, presently residing at Khamela, P.S. - Amour, Dist. - Purnea.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md Fazle Karim, Adv.

Mr. Niharika Rani, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP For the Informant/s :

Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Dr. Kislay, Adv.

====================================================== 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 connection with Complaint Case No. 1929 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused person are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58699 of 2025(4) dt.04-11-2025 2/3

4. 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 complainant. The petitioner 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 no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58699 of 2025(4) dt.04-11-2025 3/3 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, Purnea in connection with Complaint Case No. 1929 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., with further condition:- (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 bonds of the petitioner are 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 reconcilation or one time settlement.

8. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) shivam/- U T