Sunil Kumar Mishra @ Sunil Mishra v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6846 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1073 Year- 2016 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Mishra @ Sunil Mishra Son of Nityanand Mishra, Resident of Village/Mohalla- Bishanpur Bathua, P.S.- Pusa, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Nibha Kumari Wife of Sunil Kumar, Resident of Vill/MohallaBishanpur Bathua, P.S.- Pusa, District- Samastipur at Present residing at Dauther of Rampukar Jha, Village- Baini, P.S.- Tajpur(Baini) O.P., District- Samastipur.
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1073 of 2016 for the offence instituted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act.
The allegation against the petitioner is of committing mental and physical torture upon the complainant for demand of dowry. It is further alleged that from their wedlock, a mentally retarded child was born and the petitioner brought the complainant at Delhi at the house of his brother for treatment and his treatment got started in AIIMS, where she was treated badly.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6846 of 2017 (2) dt.13-02-2017 2/2 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. From perusal of the order of the Sessions Court, it appears that the petitioner and the complainant both had appeared for the purpose of counseling. The petitioner is ready to keep the complainant but the complainant has raised apprehension that the petitioner will not keep her with all due respect. Hence, counseling has failed. On behalf of the State and the counsel for the complainant, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today in connection with Complaint Case No. 1073 of 2016, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Samastipur, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Sudhir Singh, J) Amit/- U T