Vineet Kumar Pandey v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26067 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -865 Year- 2010 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Vineet Kumar Pandey .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Priyanka Pandey, D/o Nand Kioshore Dewedi, Postal Park, Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ataur Rahman, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 03-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite part No 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in jail since 02.03.2017 in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A complaint has been lodged by the Opposite Party No.2 and the accusation is of torture for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand. The petitioner has performed second marriage also.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent and a compromise was entered initially which did not materialize but he undertakes to co-operate in trial. He submits that the allegations are false and concocted and he is ready to abide the terms and conditions.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26067 of 2017 (3) dt.03-07-2017 2/2 However, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submits that there was torture, harassment and demand of dowry, hence, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State also opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and materials on record, let the petitioner above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each the to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 865 (c ) of 2010, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a close relative of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit stating his relationship with the petitioner and the petitioner will co-operate during trial and appear on each and every date before the Court below and failure to appear on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of his bail bonds. (Nilu Agrawal, J) Sudha/- U T