IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1791 of 2024 ------ Jai Raman Roy, aged about 37 years, son of late Mani Kant Roy, resident of Flat No. S-23, Suryaudaya Apartment Chira Chas, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sanu Priya, aged about 34 years, wife of Jai Raman Roy and daughter of Divakant Pathak, resident of Babu Pada, Ward No. 12, P.O. & P.S.-Godda, Dist.-Godda (Jharkhand), presently residing at Flat No. 19, A Block Laxmi Narayan Apartment Chira Chas, Sector 12 FD2203, & P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vinay Kr. Tiwary, Advocate ------ Order No.06 Dated- 20.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.96 of 2023 registered under sections 323/325/ 307/ 354/379/406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner treated the informant with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and are general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Bokaro vide Case No.260 of 2023. It is next submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 was a love marriage hence, there is no question of any demand of dowry. It is further submitted that though the informant is residing and working as a teacher at Bhavnath Choudhari College of Education, Bokaro so as the petitioner but only to harass the petitioner, this case has been lodged at Godda. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 16 of the anticipatory bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to resume conjugal life with the informant-opposite party no.2, if and when the informant-opposite party no.2 is ready and willing to resume conjugal life with the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to furnish sufficient security including cash security and also cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 above named 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 C.J.M., Godda, in connection with Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.96 of 2023 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case with further condition that the petitioner will keep and maintain the opposite party no.2 with full dignity and honour as his lawful wife if and when the opposite party no.2 is ready and willing to resume conjugal life with the petitioner subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-