Allowed

Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Sao v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Oct 2024CR. MISC./73589/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband sought anticipatory bail in a complaint case alleging dowry demand of Rs. 1 lakh, mental and physical torture and ouster from the matrimonial home after a second marriage. Considering the circumstances, the High Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and left parties free to seek mediation for reconciliation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like amount within six weeks, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Sao Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73589 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-475 Year-2023 Thana- AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Aurangabad

¶3

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

¶4

Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Sao S/O Bijay Saw R/O Village- Barwadih, PostPachmo, P.S.- Hariharganj, District- Palamu, Jharkhand.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

Pinki Devi W/O Ranjit Kumar, D/O Suresh Sao R/O Village- Barwadih, Post- Pachmo, P.S.- Hariharganj, District- Palamu, Jharkhand. At present R/o Village- Mahuadham, P.S and Post- Kutumba, Distt.- Aurangabad.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP For the Informant/s : Ms. Mukul Kumari, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 23-10-2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶14

counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 475 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of D.P. Act.

¶16

3. 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.

¶17

1 lakhs as dowry and ultimately ousted her from the

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73589 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 2/3

¶19

matrimonial home after snatching away her belongings. It is further alleged that the petitioner has contracted second marriage with another girl.

¶20

4. 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 informant. It is further submitted that the present complainant has also filed a complaint case against the petitioner bearing Complaint Case No. 306 of 2017 prior to the present complaint for the same and similar allegation. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petition. 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

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73589 of 2024(2) dt.23-10-2024 3/3

¶22

Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023 .

¶23

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶24

6. 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, Aurangabad in connection with Complaint Case No. 475 of 2023, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

7. 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.

¶26

8. The application stands allowed.

¶27

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

¶28

shivam/-

¶29

U T

Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Sao v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjit Sao 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

Shama Nazreen @ Shama Najreen Vs The State of Bihar

Samshad Ansari @ Shamshed Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Utkarsh Ambastha Vs The State of Bihar

Manti Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Neelam Devi @ Juhi Vs The State of Bihar

Alok Azad Vs The State of Bihar