Arjun Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17119 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.
Arjun Yadav Son Of Tekan Yadav Resident Of Village - Vijay Nagar (NUMAR), P.S. - Barhat, District - Jamui 2.
Rama Devi Wife Of Arjun Yadav Resident Of Village - Vijay Nagar (NUMAR), P.S. - Barhat, District - Jamui 3.
Dhananjay Yadav Son Of Arjun Yadav Resident Of Village - Vijay Nagar (NUMAR), P.S. - Barhat, District - Jamui 4.
Pappu Yadav Son Of Arjun Yadav Resident Of Village - Vijay Nagar (NUMAR), P.S. - Barhat, District - Jamui 5.
Ranjo Yadav @ Ranjay Kumar @ Ranjay Yadav Son Of Arjun Yadav Resident Of Village - Vijay Nagar (NUMAR), P.S. - Barhat, District - Jamui 6.
Kranti Devi Wife Of Dhananjay Yadav Resident Of Village - Vijay Nagar (NUMAR), P.S. - Barhat, District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 14-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Jamui Mahila P.S. Case No. 76 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections-498(A), 341, 323, 325, 406, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Prosecution case in short is that the accused persons including the petitioners used to torture and assault the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17119 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 2/2 consequently, the informant was ousted from her matrimonial home.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are in-laws of the victim having no concern with dayto-day affairs of the couple. The petitioners have falsely been implication in the present case merely because they are close relatives of husband of the victim. They are the persons of clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners named above, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with Jamui Mahila P.S. Case No. 76 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T