Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                A.B.A. No. 57 of 2025
                          ------

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Yadav, Aged about 26 years,
Son of Nakuldev Yadav, Res of -Village Badwar, P.O. -Daru,
P.S. -Daru, Dist -Hazaribagh, State -Jharkhand.

                                         ...          Petitioner
                                 Versus
       1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sakhiya Kumari, Wife of Rahul Kumar Yadav, Daughter of
Prayag Yadav, Res of -Sarghwa Tand, P.O. -Rampur, P.S. –
Chauparan, District -Hazaribagh.

                                         ...         Opposite Parties
                                  ------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

——

       For the Petitioner        : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate
       For the State             : Mr. V.S. Sahay, Addl. P.P.
       For the O.P. No.2         : Mr. Manoj Kr. Ram, Advocate
                                 : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate
                                       ------
       Order No.02 Dated- 17.01.2025

            Heard the parties.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court
for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Daru
P.S. Case No.59 of 2024 registered under sections 341/323/325/
498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner treated the
opposite party no.2 with cruelty in connection of demand of dowry.
It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are
all false and the informant suppressed the fact that she was having a
prior marriage with Sudhanshu Yadav as mentioned in para-6 of the
supplementary affidavit and that is the real bone of contention
between the parties and ornamental allegations have been made
against the petitioner to harass him. It is then submitted that the
petitioner undertakes to furnish sufficient security including cash
security and also undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of
the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the
informant in any manner during the pendency of the case. Hence, it
is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory
bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner was very much
aware about the marriage of the informant with Sudhanshu Yadav.

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
abovenamed 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 Judicial Magistrate

-1st Class, Hazaribagh, in connection with Daru P.S. Case No.59 of
2024 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 that he will not annoy or disturb
the informant in any manner during the pendency of the case subject
to the conditions laid down under section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-