Hritesh Kumar Gupta @ Ritesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57504 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1126 Year-2018 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District- Rohtas ====================================================== Hritesh Kumar Gupta @ Ritesh Kumar Son of Late Chunni Saw @ Late Chunni Prasad Gupta Resident of Village- Garoa PS- Suhawal Dist -Ghazipur UP ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rimjhim Devi @ Rimjhim Kumari Daughter of Shailendra Kumar Gupta @ Kaulendra Kumar Gupta Resident of Village- Garoa PS- Suhawal Dist -Ghazipur UP At P/A- Resident of village- Reria, ps- Chenari, Dist- rohtas ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Khurshid Anwar, 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. 1126 of 2018 registered for the offence/s punishable u/s 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 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 one Alto car as dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57504 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.57504 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, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1126 of 2018, 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