Jyoti Prasad Srivastava v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80840 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1246 Year-2004 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== Jyoti Prasad Srivastava Son Of Late Suresh Prasad Srivastava R/O VillageWajitpur Bamaiya, P.S.- Bibhutipur, Dist.- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State Of Bihar

2. Reena Devi, D/o Vinay Kumar Sinha, R/o Village +P.O.-Harpur Alloth, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt.-Samastipur, Pin code-848101 ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Om Prakash Om For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 14-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of D.P. Act.

3. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the petitioner tortured the complainant and demanded Rs. 15,000/- and a motorcycle, as more dowry after marriage and later on due to non-fulfillment of demand kicked her out from the matrimonial house after keeping all her belongings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner is husband of the complainant due to which he has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80840 of 2023(2) dt.14-12-2023 2/2 falsely been implicated in the present case. Neither he demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. He is still ready to keep his wife/complainant with full dignity and honour. A statement has been made in para-3 of the petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.05.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as custody of the petitioner, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with C. R. No. 1246 of 2004 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T