Ajay Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24164 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2020 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

AJAY CHAUHAN Son of Padarath Chauhan Resident of Village- Saidpur, P.S.- Athmalgola, District- Patna.

2.

Priti Devi wife of Ajay Chauhan Resident of Village- Saidpur, P.S.- Athmalgola, District- Patna.

3.

Sarojni Devi @ Saroj Davi Wife of Padarath Chauhan Resident of VillageSaidpur, P.S.- Athmalgola, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 17-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is expected to honour his undertaking given in the instant case for depositing the requisite court fee and to remove the defect(s) as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is a case of cruelty due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24164 of 2021(2) dt.17-01-2022 2/2 further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners and the main allegation is against the husband of the informant, namely, Binay Chauhan, who maintains the victim, namely, Sangita Devi and husband is not the petitioner in this case. He further submits that petitioner no.1 and 2 are Bhaisur and Gotani of the informant whereas petitioner no.3 is mother-in-law of the informant. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-Ist, Barh, District-Patna in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 360 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) brajesh kumar/- U T