Ritu Ranjan v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52125 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2014 Thana -GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Ritu Ranjan S/o Janardan Prasad, R/o Aayushman Building beside Dr. Rai, near Kaveri Sweet Shop, A.P. Colony, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya. At present Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Sheikhpura Address Bank of Baroda, Baroda house, Dewan Shopping Centre, Jogeshwari West , P.S.- Jogeshwari, West Mumbai.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mukta Sinha W/o Ritu Ranjan, D/o Late Dilip Murari, R/o Flat No. A4, Pyara Apartment , Beside PNB Bank, Chandauti Morh, P.S.- Chandauti, District- Gaya 823001.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Smt Renu Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under Sections 406, 420, 498(A), 109, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of D.P. Act.

The allegation against the petitioner is of committing torture upon the victim due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 04.10.2017. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52125 of 2017 (2) dt.09-11-2017 2/2 witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The case is triable by the Magistrate. Due to petty family dispute, the present case has been instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of this court, in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182. On behalf of the state, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/Complaint case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, be released on bail on furnishing 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., Gaya, in connection with Complaint Case No. 109 of 2014, Tr. No. 1734 of 2017.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Amit/- U T