Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79085 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2024 Thana- MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE District- Madhubani ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Son of Ramsharan Yadav Resident of Village- Sirahi, P.S.- Basopatti, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar 2.
Shova Kumari Wife of Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, D/o- Vijay Kumar Yadav R/o Village- Pachahar, P.S.- Jaynagar, Districty- Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with C.R. No. 68/2024, T.R. No. 2086/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79085 of 2025(2) dt.17-11-2025 2/3 that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner who is the husband of the complainant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. 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 in para 3 of the bail petition.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail 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 anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79085 of 2025(2) dt.17-11-2025 3/3 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Madhubani in connection with C.R. No. 68/2024, T.R. No. 2086/2024, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., with further condition:- (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 bonds of the petitioner are 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 reconcilation or one time settlement.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) shivam/- U T