Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Barnwal vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7899 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Barnwal vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 19 December, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                        2025:JHHC:38356




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                           A.B.A. No. 7335 of 2025
                                                ----

Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Barnwal, aged about 35 years, son of Arjun Prasad Barnwal, resident of in-front of Durga Decorators, PO PS and District - Giridih .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Shwetang Tiwari, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Advocate For the Informant :- Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate

----

02/19.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned

counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for

the Informant.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with

Deoghar (Mahila) P.S. Case No.08 of 2025, for the alleged offences

registered under Sections 85, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351 and 61(2) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Deoghar.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner happened to be husband of the informant and false

allegation is made against the petitioner of installing CCTV camera

in the bedroom. He further submits that the CCTV camera has been

installed for the purpose of security outside the house and not in

2025:JHHC:38356

the bedroom. He then submits that the allegation of demand of

dowry is also false rather the petitioner has paid Rs.9 lacs to the

father-in-law for starting the business and to buttress this

argument, he refers to Annexure-2 which is bank statement. He

next submits that the fact of assault is also demolished in view of

the fact that allegation of assault is made on 09.03.2025, however,

on 10.03.2025 the petitioner has taken the wife for treatment to the

hospital due to ailment of gallbladder.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and Informant

opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner happened to be

husband and in view of that the anticipatory bail may kindly be

rejected.

5. The petitioner happened to be husband and it has been

pointed out that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.9 lacs to the

father-in-law for starting the business and the medical prescription

of 10.03.2025 has been annexed of treatment of the informant and

the allegation is made that on 09.03.2025 assault has been made

and further the case of the petitioner comes within Category-A of

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender

Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.,

reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. In the attending facts and

circumstances of this case, I am inclined to provide anticipatory bail

to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is hereby directed

2025:JHHC:38356

to surrender before the learned Court within four weeks from today,

and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the petitioner, above

named, shall be released on bail, 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., Deoghar

in connection with Deoghar (Mahila) P.S. Case No.08 of 2025,

subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 19.12.2025 Sangam/