Dharamnath Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22871 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1373 Year-2018 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Dharamnath Pandey, aged about 65 years, Male, Son of Late Jangi Pandey. 2.

Sabujpari Devi, aged about 64 years, Female, Wife of Dharamnath Pandey. Both residents of Village - Sakhabadahe, P.S.- Govindganj, District - East Champaran.

Presently residing at Mohalla Agarwa, Chiknighat Road, P.S.- Motihari (Town), District - East Champaran.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ranju Devi @ Ranju Pandey, aged about 38 years, Female, Daughter of Ashok Pandey, Resident of Village - Rupani, P. S.- Patahi, District - East Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jai Narain Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1373C of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 379, 323, 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of D. P. Act. The allegation against the petitioners, as per the complaint, is that the marriage of the complainant, namely, Ranju Devi @ Ranju Pandey was solemnized with one Pankaj

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22871 of 2019(7) dt.01-08-2019 2/3 Kumar Pandey on 10.03.2003. It has further been alleged that after the marriage, for about five years, everything was peaceful and thereafter, the petitioners along with their son started demanding of Rs. 5 lacs as dowry and due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, they tortured the complainant physically and mentally and ousted her from matrimonial house. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are aged father-in-law and motherin-law of the complainant. He further submits that the allegation of demand of dowry levelled against the petitioners in the complaint are general and omnibus in nature and after about 9 years of marriage, the present complaint case has been filed alleging demand of dowry against the petitioners.

Learned counsel further submits that notice was issued to O. P. No. 2 i.e. Ranju Devi @ Ranju Pandey and despite service of notice, she did not appear for any kind of settlement with her husband. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are aged father-in-law and mother-in-law, as such, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the provisional bail granted to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22871 of 2019(7) dt.01-08-2019 3/3 petitioners, vide order, dated 11.04.2019, is, hereby, confirmed and the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners in the court below shall be treated to be bond furnished pursuant to this order.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Rajeev Kumar/- U T