Suraj Vishwakarma v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50097 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -139 Year- 2012 Thana -JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE DistrictJEHANABAD ====================================================== Suraj Vishwakarma Son of Late Ram Bilash Vishwakarma Resident of Village - Ramchandrapur, Police Station - Laheri, District - Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Rubi Devi @ Reena Kumari Daughter of Sheo Shankar Mistri Resident of Diwapur, P.S. Kako, District - Jehanabad.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 08-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 139 of 2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Allegedly, the petitioner being the husband of the complainant, due to non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, assaulted her and snatched her ornaments and further ousted from her in-laws house.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner was the second husband of the complainant and she has again married with the brother of her sister-in-law, which is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50097 of 2015 (3) dt.08-02-2016 2/2 apparent from the certificate dated 17.08.2013 issued by the Sarnanch, Grampanchyat, Khalispur and the petitioner in this false case, is suffering in custody since 27.07.2015, having no criminal antecedent.

The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner has married with another lady and further he is not providing any maintenance to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that no injury has been caused to the complainant and, as such, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Learned S.D.J.M., Jehanabad in Complaint Case No. 139 of 2012 subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U T