IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60758 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-829 Year-2019 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Sharma @ Santosh Sharma son of Lakhan Lal Sharma, R/o - Palsha, Ward no. 01, Ps- Ajam Nager, Dist- katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Rachna Kumari wife of Santosh kumar Sharma @ santosh Sharma, Daughter of Rohit lal Sharma R/o- kajra kamalpur, ward no. 1, ps- Raniganj, Dist- Araria. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kundan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Khurshid Anwar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 4 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The accused-petitioner, named in the complaint, is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 829 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 323, 341, 342, 498A/384/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 498A IPC r/w 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is to commit mental and physical cruelty upon the complainant alongwith other co- accused persons/family members due to non-fulfillment of demand of cash of Rs. 2.5 lacs as dowry. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60758 of 2024(4) dt.03-02-2026 2/3 submitted that allegation as raised through complaint petition qua mental and physical cruelty is appearing very much general and omnibus in nature against the petitioner and furthermore, the present complaint was filed after about five months of the alleged last occurrence, which took place on 11.09.2018, as the present complaint was filed on 09.04.2019, without having any just explanation and also the complaint in issue is not supported by affidavit, which is contrary to the settled position of law as available through Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2015 (6) SCC 287]. Petitioner claimed clean antecedent. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no. 2, while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that the petitioner is the husband and he forced to live complainant in destitution. 7. Let it be so, considering the fact that complaint not appears to be supported by affidavit, where allegation qua committing mental and physical cruelty also appears very much general and omnibus in nature against petitioner, accordingly, above-named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be enlarged Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60758 of 2024(4) dt.03-02-2026 3/3 on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District & Sessions Juge-IV, Araria/concerned court in connection with Complaint Case No. 829 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”). 8. Parties may settled their disputes and differences at any point of time before learned trial court. veena/- (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) U T