IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1359 of 2025 ------ Md. Afroz @ Md. Aforz Alam @ Afroz Alam, aged about 24 years, sons of Md. Gulam Sarwar, resident of Bhikhanpur, Gumti No. 3, P.O. –G.P.O., Bhagalpur, P.S. –Ishak Chak, District –Bhagalpur (Bihar). … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Khalida Jiya, aged about 28 years, daughter of Md. Saukat Ali, resident of Village –Gangta Khurd, Fasia Dangal, Ward No. 20, P.O. & P.S. –Godda (Town), District –Godda. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 27.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Protest- cum-Complaint Case No.514 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the informant treated her with cruelty in connection of demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and police after investigation of the case submitted final form because of lack of evidence against the petitioner and after protest petition only, the learned Magistrate has found prima facie the case. It is then submitted that the petitioner was invited for a dinner to the house of one of the relatives of the informant and he was abducted and the father of the petitioner lodged a complaint with Mahagama Police Station and a Panchayati was also held. It is next submitted that under undue pressure, the father and brother of the informant obtained signature of the petitioner on different papers which were subsequently converted into documents of Dain Mohar and Nikahnama. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 7(1) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 against the opposite party no.2 for cancellation of the so called forged marriage and the same has been registered as Original Suit No. 71 of 2021 in the family court and to put undue pressure upon the petitioner, this false case has been foisted. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to furnish sufficient security including cash security and also undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs.25,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Godda, in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.514 of 2022 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case with further condition that that he will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-