Arvind Saw v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20251 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-362 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

ARVIND SAW son of Late Babu Lal sah RESIDENT OF VILLAGESINGARITARH P.S- KHAIRA DISTRICT- JAMUI 2.

Babita Devi @ Baby Devi wife of Arvind Saw RESIDENT OF VILLAGESINGARITARH P.S- KHAIRA DISTRICT- JAMUI 3.

Parmanand @ Parmanand Saw son of Arvind Saw RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SINGARITARH P.S- KHAIRA DISTRICT- JAMUI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 06-07-2023 Heard the parties.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioners is that they killed the daughter of the informant on the pretext of non-fulfillment of demand for dowry.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that earlier the police has registered the case under Section 304B and other sections of the IPC, but after

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20251 of 2023(2) dt.06-07-2023 2/2 investigation, police has filed final form against the petitioners and learned Court below accepted the final form. He further submits that the complainant filed a protest petition and the same is treated as a complaint case and after examination of the complainant and other witnesses, the learned Court below took cognizance under Section 306 of the IPC. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No.362(C)/2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T