Sandeep Kumar Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6647 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1997 Year-2017 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran ====================================================== SANDEEP KUMAR RANJAN Son of Ramprit Mahto @ Tahgan Mahto Resident of House No. E-36, Road No. 13, near Children Park, Patratu Tharmal Power Station, P.S. Patratu, District - Ramgarh (Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Dimpi @ Dimpal Kumari Wife of Sandeep Kumar Ranjan Daughter of Sarbjeet Sinha, Resident of Village and Post Office - Anjani, P.S. Parsa, District - Saran.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 01-09-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner in this application prays for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Trial No. 2533 of 2019 (arising out of Complaint Case no. 1997 of 2017) wherein cognizance was taken under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per allegation in the complaint, the accused persons including the petitioner herein who happens to be husband of the complainant are said to have tortured the complainant for non-fulfilment of dowry which was by way of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6647 of 2020(12) dt.01-09-2023 2/3 an Alto car.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only on account of being the husband of the complainant. It is in fact the opposite party no.2 who deserted him for which even a Panchayati was held on 10.11.2016. Although the allegation in the complaint is of the accused persons having forced the complainant out of the house on 30.12.2016, it is after an inordinate delay that the complaint was filed on 28.6.2017.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation in the F.I.R. including the delay in lodging of the complaint together with the attempt for reconciliation between the parties having failed and the petitioner not having any criminal antecedent, it is directed that the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Trial No.2533 of 2019 (arising out of Complaint Case no. 1997 of 2017) on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6647 of 2020(12) dt.01-09-2023 3/3 Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Chapra. (Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U T