Bipul Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4224 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31908 of 2020
           Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Vaishali
      ======================================================

Bipul Kumar, aged about 24 years, Male, son of Pramod Thakur, resident of Village- Chhitrauli, P.S. Maniyari, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Kumari Anjali Bharty, age 21 years, wife of Bipul Kumar, D/O Bhola Thakur, resident of village - Hasanpur Osti, P.S. Mahua, District - Vaishali.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

      For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
      For the State            :        Ms. Meena Singh, APP
      For the OP No. 2         :        Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 23-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Ms. Meena Singh, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State

and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite

party no. 2.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Hajipur Mahila PS Case No. 05 of 2020 dated 06.02.2020,

instituted under Sections 341, 323, 498A/34, 504, 506 of the

Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The petitioner is the husband of the informant-

opposite party no. 2. Earlier, on the stand taken on behalf of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31908 of 2020 dt.23-08-2021

petitioner, when the matter was heard, on the plea of learned

counsel for the parties, the Court had directed that the parties

would be present if physical functioning of the Court resumes.

5. On 05.07.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner

had reiterated his stand that he is ready to take the opposite

party no. 2 with him and keep her at the place where he resides

and that he shall ensure her full dignity, honour and security and

shall provide for all her needs.

6. On such stand taken by learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 had

submitted that though, in terms of earlier order, the petitioner

was to go to the house of the opposite party no. 2 on 13.03.2021

at 11.00 AM to take her to the matrimonial home, but he had not

turned up. In view of the said position, the Court had granted

one more opportunity to complete the exercise and as per the

agreement between the parties, 20th July, 2021, was fixed as the

date when the petitioner was to go to the house of the opposite

party no. 2 at 11.00 AM and to facilitate the exercise, the

Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, was directed to direct the

SHO of Mahua PS to depute an officer to accompany the

petitioner to the house of the opposite party no. 2.

7. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner had gone to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31908 of 2020 dt.23-08-2021

house of the opposite party no. 2 and had taken her to the

matrimonial home. However, on 22nd July, 2021, the opposite

party no. 2 returned back to her parents' house after going to

Maniyari PS. As there was conflicting stand taken by learned

counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite

party no. 2, with regard to the sequence of events, the Court had

asked learned APP to inform the Superintendent of Police,

Vaishali, as well as the SHO, Maniyari PS, to join the

proceeding in the second half at 2.15 PM.

8. At 2.15 PM, when the case was again taken up, the

Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, as well as the SHOs of

Mahua PS and Maniyari PS joined the proceeding.

9. On a query to them, the Superintendent of Police,

Vaishali informed that the father of the opposite party no. 2 had

called him on 22nd July, 2021, saying that the opposite party no.

2 was facing some difficulty in the matrimonial home and, thus,

he had directed the SHO, Mahua PS to get in touch with the

Maniyari PS and do the needful. When the Court asked the

SHO, Maniyari PS, to state what had happened, he submitted

that a Chaukidaar was deputed on 20th July, 2021 itself at the

matrimonial home of the opposite party no. 2 and she herself

had locked her up in the room and closed the windows and upon Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31908 of 2020 dt.23-08-2021

persuasion she had opened the same and thereafter on 22 nd July,

2021, she had come to his PS, where her father had also come

and had returned to her father's place. It was submitted that as

per the report of the Chaukidaar there was no physical abuse or

torture of the opposite party no. 2 and she had called her father

from the matrimonial house. The SHO Maniyari PS also stated

that she had come to the police station and there was no sign of

any assault on her and that she had gone with her father to her

parents' house.

10. At this juncture, when the Court called upon the

Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, to know his views as he has

enclosed photographs to show that the petitioner and the

opposite party no. 2 had come to his office on 20 th July, 2021,

and wanted to know as to what was their intention, the

Superintendent of Police submitted that from his perception, it

appeared that the petitioner was eager to take back the opposite

party no. 2 in the matrimonial home, but there was lack of

enthusiasm on the part of the opposite party no. 2.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

after coming to the matrimonial home not only had the opposite

party no. 2 locked herself in the room, but had also not eaten

any food prepared by the petitioner's side, rather, she consumed Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31908 of 2020 dt.23-08-2021

the food which she had brought from her house.

12. The allegation against the petitioner and others,

including his family members, is that he being the husband had

been given cash, ornaments, furniture etc. during marriage on

24.05.2019 and after five days the petitioner had gone to Delhi

without informing her and his family members had tortured her

for dowry and the petitioner is also said to have threatened her

and demanded dowry on phone due to which she came back to

her father's place and when she returned to the matrimonial

home after Panchayati, the petitioner's side did not relent on the

demand of dowry leading to institution of the present case.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the allegation is false and it is the opposite party no. 2, who, for

some reason, does not want to live in the matrimonial home

despite the petitioner and his family members being ready to

keep her with full dignity, honour and security and the demand

of dowry is totally false.

14. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2

submitted that he has filed affidavit in which it has been stated

that after taking the opposite party no. 2 to the matrimonial

home, she was tortured and also assaulted and locked up in the

room and had to call the police, who rescued her and then she Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31908 of 2020 dt.23-08-2021

had gone with her father.

15. From what has been stated by the Superintendent

of Police, Vaishali, the SHO, Maniyari PS and the SHO, Mahua

PS, the Court finds that the allegation levelled by the opposite

party no. 2, as far as the exercise of going to the matrimonial

home on 20th July, 2021 and thereafter returning to her parent's

place on 22nd July, 2021, is not, as has been stated in the

affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, and, rather,

her conduct, as disclosed by the aforesaid Police Officers,

indicates that she has not only not cooperated but has also not

fairly stated the sequence of events. Thus, it is apparent that she

is not having any intention to return to the matrimonial home

despite the assurance being given by the petitioner ensuring her

honour, dignity and safety and also the Court directing for the

same.

16. In the aforesaid background, taking an overall

view of the matter, as there are indications that the petitioner

and his family members being eager to keep the opposite party

no. 2 in the matrimonial home and there being lack of intention

on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to return to the matrimonial

home, the Court is persuaded to allow the prayer for pre-arrest

bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31908 of 2020 dt.23-08-2021

17. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender

before the Court below within six weeks from today, the

petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali, in Hajipur Mahila PS

Case No. 05 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in

Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and

further (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the

petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the

Court and the police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead

to cancellation of his bail bonds.

18. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring

any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioner, to the

notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

                          19.   The   petition     stands     disposed         of   in   the

            aforementioned terms.


                                             (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
J. Alam/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T