Allowed

Yag Prakash @ Yagyaprakash v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Nov 2023CR. MISC./44358/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed seeking anticipatory bail. The court considered allegations of dowry torture and false implication. Hearing submissions and opposed arguments, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted for six weeks on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like amount each.

Yag Prakash @ Yagyaprakash Vs the State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44358 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1625 Year-2020 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai

¶3

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

¶4

Yag Prakash @ Yagyaprakash S/O Baidhanath Prasad Resident of VillageJhajhamanganj, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

Nandani Kumari Wife of Yag Prakash, Resident of Village- Jhajhamanganj, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali, Present Address Nandani Kumari, Daughter of Jitendra Sah, Village- Nauranga, P.O.- Shitalasthan, P.S.- Begusarai, District- Begusarai

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. For the Complainant : Mr. Sanjay Sinha, Advocate Mr. Md. Fazle Karim, Advocate.

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 07-11-2023

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to

¶16

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

¶17

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

¶18

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1625(C) of 2020 dated 24.12.2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act.

¶19

4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44358 of 2023(3) dt.07-11-2023 2/3

¶21

mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry.

¶22

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. It is further submitted that the petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. The petitioner is the 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.

¶23

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned counsel for the Complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44358 of 2023(3) dt.07-11-2023 3/3

¶25

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. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Begusarai in connection with Complaint Case No. 1625(C) of 2020, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶26

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 reconciliation or one time settlement.

¶27

9. The application stands allowed.

¶28

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶29

Nilmani/-

¶30

U T

Yag Prakash @ Yagyaprakash v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yag Prakash @ Yagyaprakash 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Imarn Vs the State of Bihar

Devi Lal Mahto @ Devi Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Niranjan Yadav @ Niranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar @ Roushan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Mishra @ Manish Kumar Mishra Vs The State of Bihar