Janardan Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31218 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2020 Thana- TARARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Janardan Sah Son of Shri Luxman Sah Resident of Khiriyawa, P.S.- Kacchwa, District - Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-02-2022 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Virtual Court proceeding. Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Tarari P.S. Case No. 212 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498(A), 341, 323, 312, 313, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. According to prosecution case, one Pinki Kumar in her written application stated that she was married with this petitioner on 12.05.2019 in which several gifts and ornaments were given but petitioner demanded motorcycle on the day of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31218 of 2021(4) dt.11-02-2022 2/3 marriage which was settled after intervention of villagers. Anyhow things were good for three months and thereafter petitioner again started demanding a four wheeler in place of motorcycle and on non-fulfillment he tortured again. In the meantime, informant got pregnant but on account of assault by the petitioner miscarriage took place. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner administered poison in tea and tried to kill the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in the present case only on the basis that petitioner is the husband of the informant. He further submits that during investigation nothing has come against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 04.12.2020.

The learned counsel for the Informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

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 Sushant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31218 of 2021(4) dt.11-02-2022 3/3 Kumar, Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Tarari P.S. Case No. 212 of 2020, subject to the following conditions:-

1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

3. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) mdrashid/- U T