IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 810 of 2025 Sikandar Chouhan, aged about 40 years, son of Late Arjun Chouhan, resident of Bhatmudna, opposite S.B.I, Government Quarter, Katras, P.O Bhatmudna & P.S. Katras, District Bokaro--- --- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opp. Party --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahatha, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. For the Informant: Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate --- 03 / 06.03.2025 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bermo (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 3 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 277 of 2024 for the offences registered under sections 323/342/352/354/504/452/453/454/457/506/509/376(2)(n)/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Petitioner happens to be the husband of the Informant. There is allegation that the petitioner tortured the Informant to enforce the demand of dowry. Initially, complaint case was filed which was sent for institution of police case. Police case was registered under various sections including 498A and 376(2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that charge has been framed under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the same is pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat. It was submitted that the Informant has not sustained any injury at the hands of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Informant, on specific query whether protest petition was filed after police has submitted charge sheet under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, he replied in 2. negative. He also confirmed that the Informant has not sustained any injury at the hands of the petitioner. 6. In view of the submission made above, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Bermo (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 3 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 277 of 2024. (Ambuj Nath, J) Ranjeet/ Uploaded