Dinesh Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.95 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1713 Year-2011 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1.
Dinesh Chaudhary Son of Sri Ram Chaudhary Resident of village -Bahoranpur PS -Sahpur District -Patna 2.
Babita Devi Wife of Dinesh Chaudhary Resident of village -Bahoranpur PS -Sahpur District -Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Durgawati Devi Wife of Dinesh Chaudhary village- Saragpur, Ps- Ara Muffasil, Dist- Bhojpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Raju Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Arun Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-04-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a complaint case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 494 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per prosecution case, marriage of complainant was solemnized with Petitioner No. 1 on 25.04.2008 as per Hindu rites and rituals and after marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws due to non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. It is further alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.95 of 2025(4) dt.17-04-2025 2/3 that during subsistence of first marriage, Petitioner No. 1 solemnized second marriage with Petitioner No. 2.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Petitioner No. 1 is husband and Petitioner No. 2 is second wife, as alleged in the complaint petition. During pendency of the present case, due to intervention of well wishers of both the parties, the case has already been compromised and a compromise petition to that effect has also been filed, copy of which is Annexure P-2 to this bail petition. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Considering the nature of accusation, fact that dispute between the parties has already been compromised and clean antecedents of the petitioners, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.95 of 2025(4) dt.17-04-2025 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Complaint Case No. 1713(C) of 2011, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T