Mintu Kumar @ Mintoo Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66456 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-646 Year-2022 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== Mintu Kumar @ Mintoo Kumar Son of Mukha Prasad @ Mukha Ram Resident of Village - Pakadia, Police Station - Akorhigola, District - Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ritu Kumari Daughter of Tejnarayan Prasad Resident of Village - Nanho, P.O. - Belwai, Police Station - Karakat (Gorari), District - Rohtas ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2025 Petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 are present along with their respective counsels. After a brief interaction, it appears that the matter cannot be resolved finally at this stage.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. By an earlier order, the matter had been sent to the Patna High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for resolution of disputes between the parties but the same has also failed.

4. The prosecution case is based upon a complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 in which she has made an allegation of demand of dowry and torture. Petitioner is the husband of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66456 of 2024(5) dt.13-05-2025 2/3 opposite party no.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled in the complaint are not correct and as a matter of fact, the petitioner has always been ready to keep the opposite party no.2 with full dignity and honour but due to the bad behaviour of the opposite party no. 2, it was not possible for them to stay together.

6. The application has been opposed by the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

7. At this stage, the petitioner offers to give Rs.3500/- (rupees three thousand five hundred) per month to opposite party no.2 in the first week of every month. It goes without saying that the aforesaid payment shall be subject to any order passed in matrimonial maintenance case or any other collateral proceeding.

8. In such view of the matter, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66456 of 2024(5) dt.13-05-2025 3/3 Case No. 646 of 2022, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S., and subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation/trial.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, under instruction, submits that the opposite party no.2 undertakes to provide her bank account details to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. If the opposite party no.2 furnishes the bank account in which the amount can be transferred, and yet the petitioner fails to give the aforesaid amount on two consecutive dates to opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.2 would be at liberty to file cancellation of bail.

10. It is expected that both the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 will not stop each other from meeting their children as out of two daughters, one is staying with the petitioner and the other is staying with the opposite party no. 2.

11. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. (Soni Shrivastava, J) devendra/- U T