IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65392 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1695 Year-2023 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur ====================================================== Md. Kalim S/o Md. Hafiz R/o vill - Tajpur Sirsiya, Dhuniya Tol ward no 20, PS- Tajpur, Distt. - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sahnaj Khatun S/o Md. Kamrul R/o vill - Rampur Samthu, P.S. - Anarghat, Distt. - Samastipur, Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 18-01-2025 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with C. R. Case No. 1695 of 2023, corresponding to T.R. No. 2693 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 406, 420, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Allegedly, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the O.P. No. 2 on 05.08.2021. Soon after the marriage, she was subjected to demand of dowry and on account Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65392 of 2024(3) dt.18-01-2025 2/3 of non fulfillment of the same, she was tortured in various ways. The accused persons also tried to set her ablaze. However, she anyhow rescued herself. Finally, all the accused persons ousted her from her matrimonial home, compelling her to institute the present complaint case. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that from the narrations made in the complaint, it is evident that there is omnibus nature of allegation and the institution of complaint in short span of marriage, without there being any panchayati does not inspire confidence. The petitioner has also shown his willingness that he has always been ready to keep his wife with full honour and dignity. Notice was also issued to the O.P. No. 2, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.10.2024. However, the complainant did not choose to appear. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that the petitioner being husband of the O.P. No. 2, is under obligation to keep his wife with all honour and dignity. Any demand of dowry and torture would certainly make out a case under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the dispute, arising on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65392 of 2024(3) dt.18-01-2025 3/3 account of a family feud, coupled with the fact that despite the notice received by the O.P. No. 2, she did not choose to ensure her appearance, and the cognizance of the offence is only under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Samastipur in connection with C. R. Case No. 1695 of 2023, corresponding to T.R. No. 2693 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner. shivank/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T