Raju Kumar @ Raju Mishra v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22048 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -404 Year- 2016 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Raju Kumar @ Raju Mishra Son of Nandu Mishra Resident of VillageBishunpur Sumer, P.S. Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Priyanka Kumari Wife of Raju Kumar @ Raju Mishra, Daughter of Madan thakur Resident of Village- Kushi Harpur Ramani, P.S. Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyavrat Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Tr. No.4271 of 2016, arising out of Complaint Case No.404 of 2016 for the offences instituted under Sections 384, 323, 379 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/5 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 has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22048 of 2017 (4) dt.25-08-2017 2/2 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 and counsel for the complainant, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the Complaint case.

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 Tr. No.4271 of 2016, arising out of Complaint Case No.404 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., West Muzaffarpur, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Sudhir Singh, J) Amit/- U T