Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69888 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1110 Year-2023 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sonu Kumar S/O Ram Awadhesh Singh Resident of Village- Jagdishpur, P.S.- Natwar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Aarti Kumari W/O Sonu Kumar, D/O Satyendra Singh Resident of VillageJagdishpur, P.S.- Natwar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram, presently Resident of Village- Kargahar, P.S.- Kargahar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chhote Lal Mishra Ms.Jyoti Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nityanand Ms.Niharika Rani Ms.Rinki Kumari Mr.Sanjay Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Complaint Case No.1110 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 406, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D. P. Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being husband has been falsely implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69888 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026 2/3 instant case by the opposite party no.2. It is next submitted that petitioner was married to the opposite party no.2 on 30.11.2020 and out of the wedlock, a child was born. It is further submitted that relationship in between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 has soured to an extent where it is not possible to revive the conjugal relationship in the present, but with passage of time and on intervention of well-wishers, the parties may resolve the dispute amicably.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that after marriage, the petitioner started demanding a motorcycle and Rs. One lac by way of dowry and on account of non-fulfilment of the demand, the opposite party no.2 was assaulted and was ousted from the house with her child. It is further submitted that opposite party no.2 had moved before the learned Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram by filing a maintenance case. It is submitted that learned Family Court allowed the maintenance case and directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and the same was to commence from 26.06.2024. It is next submitted that petitioner till date has not paid a single penny, as such, one can well imagine the plight of opposite party no.2 how she is surviving in absence of financial support when she

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69888 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026 3/3 has responsibility of a child who is staying with her. It is thus submitted that act of the petitioner is causing immense mental and physical trauma to the opposite party no.2.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T