IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80415 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1404 Year-2023 Thana- SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE District- Saharsa ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar S/o Bateshwar Yadav Resident of Chandor ward no. 02, police station- Sour bazar, Distt.- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ritu Kumari W/o Rajeev Kumar, D/o Ram Chandra Yadav R/o Chandor, Ward no. 2, P.S. - Sour Bazar, Distt.- saharsa. Present Address R/o Knoha ward no. 12, P.S. - Bihra, Distt.- saharsa ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subesh Sharma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP For the Complainant : Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 6 15-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 498(A), 379, 354(B), 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3.The instant case arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant, wife of the petitioner, alleging therein that there was demand for dowry and the consequent torture upon her. It has also alleged that the petitioner has solemnized his second marriage with another lady. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80415 of 2024(6) dt.15-07-2025 2/3 4. The matter had earlier been referred to the Patna High Court Mediation Centre for amicable settlement of disputes between the parties, but the mediation process failed. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are incorrect and as a matter of fact, he has always been ready to keep his wife with due dignity and honour and it is the complainant who is not desirous of staying in her matrimonial house. 6. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant, however, oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant strongly denies the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and rather submits that the petitioner has remarried and is not interested to keep the complainant along with him. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the maintenance case filed on behalf of the complainant, an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month has been fixed and in support of the same, the proof of payment of Rs. 6,000/- each for the months of May and June has also been enclosed and he also undertakes that the said payment fixed Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80415 of 2024(6) dt.15-07-2025 3/3 in the maintenance case would regularly be made by the petitioner. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned lower Court where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 1404C of 2023, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ 482 (2) of the BNSS, 2023. 9. However, it is expected that the petitioner would continuously pay the amount fixed in the maintenance case subject to any other order passed in any collateral proceedings. divyanshi/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T