2025:JHHC:11653 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5303 of 2024 ------ Umesh Prasad @ Umesh Kumar, son of Dip Nagendra Prasad, resident of Village Pithauria, P.O. & P.S. Pithauria, District Ranchi. ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate ----- 09/ 16.04.2025 This Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No.40 of 2024, for offences under Sections 498- A, 323, 341, 376, 511 and 34 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 2. Heard the parties at length. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner as the F.I.R. has got no legal sanctity. He further submits that completely in a family dispute, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by making the offence more serious by adding Section 376 IPC. He lastly submits that both the parties have settled their disputes amicably in the spirit of mediation and on the basis of mediation, co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail. The copy of compromise deed along with the order passed in A.B.P. 2025:JHHC:11653 2 No.129 of 2024 are placed on record as Annexure-2 & 2/1 respectively, to this Anticipatory Bail Application. On these grounds, he implored this Court to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail, as the petitioner along with his family members subjected the complainant to torture due to non- fulfilment of demand of dowry. However, on the other hand learned A.P.P. and counsel representing the informant are also not in a position to refute the fact that a compromise has arrived at between the parties and they are living their married life happily. 5. The F.I.R. being Rajrappa P.S. Case No.40 of 2024 came to be lodged on the basis of a Complaint Case bearing No.195 of 2024, against four persons i.e. (1) Suraj Prasad, (2) Kishori Prasad, (3) Pinki Devi and (4) Umesh Prasad (petitioner herein). 6. A perusal of Complaint Case bearing No.195 of 2024, which is the subject matter of this case, reveals that the complainant and co-accused namely Suraj Prasad were married as per Hindu customary rites and rituals on 21.01.2021 at Shiv Temple, Lari. After marriage, on the next date when the complainant went to her matrimonial home, demand of dowry persisted and she was subjected to torture due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry of Rs.2 lac, by her in-laws. On 01.02.2024, this petitioner sent her husband (co-accused Suraj Prasad) out of the house and tried to commit sexual assault upon her. Two days thereafter, husband of the complainant (Suraj Prasad) also came 2025:JHHC:11653 3 and started fighting with her brother and maternal uncle. On 08.02.2024, the complainant went to Police Station and also filed complaint before the Superintendent of Police, but her grievance remained unaddressed. Hence, she preferred the complaint case. 7. After hearing the parties and perusal of the F.I.R., Complaint Case and the compromise deed of Mediation Centre etc., this Court finds that the complainant and co-accused Suraj Prasad were in consensual relationship and performed marriage as per Hindu customary rites and rituals. 8. The complainant filed a complaint case after marriage against her in-laws for subjecting her to torture for non-fulfilment of dowry demand. 9. Thereafter, both the parties have settled their disputes amicably and are living their married life happily. 10. Considering what has been held above, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed. The petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of his surrender or arrest, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, in connection with F.I.R. being Rajrappa P.S. Case No.40 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No.195 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close 2025:JHHC:11653 4 relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3