Ravi Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78273 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-285 Year-2024 Thana- MANIHARI District- Katihar ====================================================== Ravi Kumar Yadav S/O Rishimuni Yadav @ Rashimuni Yadav Resident of Ward No. 2, Ratanpur, Post- Dilarpur, P.S- Manihari, District- Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar 2.
Preeti Kumari D/O Rajendra Prasad Yadav, W/O Ravi Kumar Yadav R/O Village- Nawabganj, P.S- Manihari, Distt.- Katihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bhola Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== 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 Manihari P.S. Case No. 285/2024 dated 04.11.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 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 informant 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.78273 of 2025(2) dt.17-11-2025 2/3 that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. There is a general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner who is the husband of the informant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has filed Matrimonial Suit No. 369/2024 in which during mediation it was decided that the O.P. No. 2 agreed to continue her matrimonial relation with the petitioner but after the order in the aforesaid case vide 03.09.2024 the O.P. No. 2 lodged F.I.R. on 04.11.2025 alleging that the petitioner in drunken state has assaulted her for which the present case has been lodged. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78273 of 2025(2) dt.17-11-2025 3/3
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. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Katihar in connection with Manihari P.S. Case No. 285/2024, subject to conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S, 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) atul/- U T