2025:JHHC:13908 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2616 of 2025 ----- Chandan Kumar Mishra, S/o Gopal Krishna Mishra, R/o Bara Guraru, Near Bank of Baroda, Opposite Jio Guraru Mills, P.O. Guraru Mills, P.S. Guraru, District- Gaya, Bihar .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Neha Mishra, W/o Chandan Kumar Mishra, D/o Anil Kumar Mishra, R/o G97, Dugda, P.O. & P.S. Dugda, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand … Opposite Party(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shishir Raj, Advocate Mr. Priyanshu Shubham, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, AddI. P.P. …...... 05/ 08.05.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Dugda P.S. Case No.03 of 2025, for offences under Sections 85/ 82(1)/ 3(5) of BNS and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat. 3. It has been alleged by the informant that she was married to the petitioner on 08.12.2020. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws started pressurizing her and demanding a car, gold chain and Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry. Since the parents of the informant were incapable of fulfilling the demands, the in-laws started torturing and harassing the informant. It has been further alleged that the in-laws ousted the informant from the matrimonial house. The in-laws remained adamant on their demand even when the informant’s parents tried to settle the matter. On 03.01.2025 the informant got to know that the petitioner had solemnized another marriage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never tortured the informant be it physically or mentally. The allegations have been leveled against the petitioner only to harass and humiliate him and the family. There has been no demand for dowry and the informant had never been subjected to any cruelty or assault. The allegation of second marriage is also false. The counsel argues that there has been inordinate delay of four years in lodging the F.I.R. The counsel further submits that the informant used to pressurize her husband to leave his old parents and live separately but when he did not listen to her, the informant left the matrimonial house herself. 5. Learned APP has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner has failed in complying to the notice under Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S to appear before the investigating officer. The counsel submits that the petitioner works in Mumbai and has performed a second marriage. 6. In reply the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot appear before the Investigating Officer because of his health problem. 7. From materials available on record, it cannot be overlooked that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner that he and his family members used to torture the informant for demand of dowry and had also ousted her from the matrimonial house. So far as ailment of the petitioner is concerned, I find that the same is not permanent. Petitioner is taking refuge of his ailment not to appear before the Investigating Officer, which clearly suggests that he is not cooperating. From the statement of the APP also it is clear that notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita was issued to the petitioner, but he failed to comply the same. If the petitioner does not appear on a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita on the pretext of ailment, it is not clear as to how the petitioner will cooperate in smooth conduct of the trial. Therefore, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find this a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, A.B.A. No. 2616 of 2025 is rejected. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./