Allowed

Avdhesh Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC30 Mar 2022CR. MISC./8856/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Patna allowed an application for anticipatory bail. The court held that the petitioner could not be prosecuted under Section 498-A IPC as he was abducted and forcibly married without a legal valid marriage. Bail granted on furnishing bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to be released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties upon arrest/surrender within four weeks.

Avdhesh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8856 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Khagaria

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Avdhesh Yadav, son of Shri Kailash Yadav, resident of Village - Bhadas Dakshini, P.S. - Khagaria Mufassil, District - Khagaria (Bihar).

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

Priyanka Kumari, Daughter of Shree Giridhar Yadav, Resident of Mohalla - Jay Prakash Nagar, Ward No. 21, Khagaria, P.S. and District - Khagaria.

¶9

... ... Opposite Parties

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP For Opp. Party No. 2 : Ms. Deepika Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 30-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to

¶14

remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶15

This application for anticipatory bail arises out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 16 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶16

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not legally married to opposite party no.2. He was abducted and thereafter forcibly married

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8856 of 2022(4) dt.30-03-2022 2/3

¶18

with opposite party no.2 which is not a marriage in the eye of law. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner had approached the local police for registration of the F.I.R. but no F.I.R. was registered by the local police and a Sanaha has been filed much before the present F.I.R. It has also been submitted that during investigation materials have come including the statement of independent witnesses in support of the fact that there is no legal and valid marriage between the parties.

¶19

Ms. Deepika Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no.2 was legally married wife of the petitioner and the petitioner side has not filed any F.I.R. with regard to the alleged forcible marriage. She also submits that the petitioner is a constable and has remarried. Some photographs have also been produced by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶20

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶21

This Court tried for settlement of the dispute between the parties but the parties have not been able to settle their disputes.

¶22

Considered the submissions of the parties.

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8856 of 2022(4) dt.30-03-2022 3/3

¶24

After going through the case dairy and the informatory petition as also the photographs produced by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, it becomes clear that the petitioner was abducted and thereafter forcibly married with opposite party no.2, therefore, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code when the opposite party no.2 is not legally weeded wife of the petitioner.

¶25

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest/surrender within four weeks from today in the Court below, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 16 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

¶28

pawan/-

¶29

U T

Avdhesh Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avdhesh Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Devi Vs the State of Bihar

Babulal Sah @ Lalbabu Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Deeplal Manjhi @ Hitlal Manjhi Vs the State of Bihar

Shailesh Giri Vs the State of Bihar

Rupak Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Kishori Devi @ Raj Kishori Devi Vs The State of Bihar