IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1771 of 2024 ------ Ram Pravesh Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Baleshwar Prasad, resident of Village-Nanaura, Tola Bangwal Bigha, P.O. & P.S.-Nawada, Dist.-Nawada, Bihar … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kiran Verma, aged about 34 years, wife of Ram Pravesh Kumar, resident of Village-Bajrang Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Telaiya, Dist.-Koderma … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No.05 Dated- 07.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 969 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under sections 498A/494/323/341/504/380 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly submit that both the petitioner and opposite party No.2 are ready and willing to resume their conjugal life. It is agreed to between the parties that both the petitioner and opposite party No.2 will appear before the trial court on 25.03.2025 and on that date the petitioner will take the opposite party No.2 to his house with an undertaking that he will keep and maintain her with full honour and dignity as his lawful wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the complainant; treated the complainant with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and because of marital discord between the parties, this case was instituted by the complainant against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State submits that in view of compromise between the parties, the state does not oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below on 25.03.2025 and in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial court on 25.03.2025, he will be enlarged on bail on taking the opposite party No.2 to his house with an undertaking that he will keep and maintain her with full honour and dignity as his lawful wife and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No. 969 of 2021 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. In case the opposite party No.2 does not appear in the learned court below on 25.03.2025 or refuses to resume conjugal life with the petitioner, still the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on 25.03.2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No. 969 of 2021 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial of the case with further condition that he will resume conjugal life with the opposite party No.2 as and when the opposite party No.2 joins him for resuming the conjugal life and keep and maintain her with dignity and honour as his lawful wife and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-