Yusuf Mansuri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.454 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2020 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVaishali ====================================================== Yusuf Mansuri S/O Md. Idris R/O Village- Bharpura, P.O and P.S- Sonpur, Distt.- Saran (Chhapra).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Salina Khatun W/O Md. Yusuf Mansuri, D/O Md. Jalil R/O Village- Purba, P.SHajipur Sadar, Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Niraj Kumar, Adv.

For the informant : Ms. Supriya Kumari, Adv. Ms. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Sangeeta Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 115/2020 dated 08.01.2020 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the coaccused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of the demand of Rs. 1,00000 /- and a motorcycle as dowry. It is further alleged that the accused persons threatened her that if the said demand was not fulfilled, they would get his brother married with another lady and also threatened to divorce her on the phone.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.454 of 2025(2) dt.02-04-2025 2/2 The petitioner is the husband of the complainant and he has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant filed a complaint before Mahila Thana bearing Case No. R4167/LSK(SP-1). The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 05.09.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner above-named, is directed to be enlarged on 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 Court concerned, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Complainant Case No. 115 of 2020.

7. The application stands allowed.

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