2025:JHHC:33040 1 A.B.A. No.6242 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6242 of 2025 ---- Jay Prakash Tiwari @ Jaiprakash Tiwari, aged about 29 years son of Mukhram Tiwari, resident of Ward No.7, Village Ramanujganj, PO and PS Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, Chattisgarh .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Naina Devi, wife of Jay Prakash Tiwari, daughter of Chandrashekhar Dubey, resident of Village Ramanujganj, PO and PS Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, Chattisgarh, presently residing at Banpurwa, PO Tildag, PS and District Garhwa .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Someshwar Roy, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate ---- 2/04.11.2025 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State as well as the O.P.no.2. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Garhwa Mahila PS Case No.12 of 2025, for offence registered under section 85, 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be husband of the informant and false allegations are made of demand of dowry. He also submits that so far as torture is concerned, it is against other relatives and torture allegation is not against the petitioner. He further submits that O.P.No.2 is suffering from epilepsy and other decease which has been stated in light of the petition filed in C.A. No.1359 of 2025 for annulment of marriage under section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act before the 2025:JHHC:33040 2 A.B.A. No.6242 of 2025 court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balrampur/ Ramanujganj and thereafter the instance case has been lodged. 4. Learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the informant jointly oppose prayer and submit that the petitioner happened to be husband of the informant. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant further adds that money has been taken by the petitioner prior to the marriage and even after marriage and that has been done in digital mode. He submits that in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 6. Considering that section 12 petition under Hindu Marriage Act has been filed earlier and thereafter the present case has been filed and it is not clear from the bank transaction as to whether it was a general transfer or on the demand by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. 7. Accordingly, petitioner, above named, is hereby directed to surrender before learned court within three weeks from today, and in event of his surrender/arrest, petitioner, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties of like amount each, to satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, in connection with Garhwa Mahila PS Case No.12 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 04.11.2025 SI/