Pankaj Mani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69794 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2025 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna ====================================================== Pankaj Mani Son of Late Mani Mohan Prasad Resident of House No. 50, Pillar No. 58, Machhali Gali, Near Sai Mandir, Police Station - Shastri Nagar, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Monika Kumari Daughter of Pradeep Kumar Wfie of Pankaj Mani, Resident of Village - Dharamshala Gali, City Chowk, Police Station - Chowk, District - Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shaheen Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-11-2025 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the paragraph no. 1 of the anticipatory bail petition during the course of the day.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 27 of 2025 dated 08.03.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 85 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2/4

4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the informant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of a car as dowry. It is further alleged that the informant after few days of her marriage, got to know that her husband has illicit relationship with other girls.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant. The allegation levelled in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant and he has no concern with the alleged offence. 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 498 A of the the Indian Penal Code 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 &

3/4 Another passed in Criminal Appeal No (s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023. The petitioner has got one criminal antecedent in which the petitioner has been acquitted as stated at para 3 of the bail petition.

6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the nature of allegation against the petitioner, let the petitioner named-above, in the event of his arrest / surrender before the learned Court below 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 learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 27 of 2025, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, on further condition: (i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned trial Court 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.

4/4

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. This application stands allowed.

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