The Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to Ravindra Kumar in a dowry harassment case upon his surrender within six weeks, subject to a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties.
Anticipatory bail granted on surrender within six weeks with a bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34962 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-735 Year-2019 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya
======================================================
RAVINDRA KUMAR Son of Suresh Chaudhary Resident of Village - Itwan, P.S.- Wazirganj, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dinesh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 23-11-2023
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to
remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No. 735 of 2019 dated 09.05.2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 379 and 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
4. 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 Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34962 of 2023(5) dt.23-11-2023 2/3
1 lakh as dowry.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner who is husband of 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.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. 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.34962 of 2023(5) dt.23-11-2023 3/3
20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Gaya in connection with Complaint Case No. 735 of 2019, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. 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.
9. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
atul/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves relief on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest.
Whether the allegations under Section 498A IPC warrant granting anticipatory bail conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of BiharReferred¶22
Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182.
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and AnotherReferred¶22
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 · Who else cites this
Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & AnrReferred¶22
Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Kumar
The State of Bihar
Renu Kumari
Chandra Prakash Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
