Kamlesh Kumar Singh And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6730 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -121 Year- 2016 Thana -GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Kamlesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Bhola Singh,

2. Kalawati Kuer, wife of Late Bhola Singh, Both are resident of VillageSongadhwa, P.S.- Phulwariya, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Saroj Devi, wife of Kamlesh Kumar Singh, resident of VillageSongadhwa, P.S.- Phulwariya, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the State : Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. For the complainant : M/S. Arun Kumar and Nirmal Kumar Sinha No. 3, Advocates.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-07-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, complainant and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 121 of 2016 for the offences instituted under Sections 323 and 498(A) of the IPC. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioners tortured the complainant due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioners.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6730 of 2017 (7) dt.20-07-2017 2/2 The case is triable by the Magistrate. They have falsely been implicated in the present case due to petty family dispute. The petitioners have further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182. It has further been prayed on behalf of learned counsels for the parties that the petitioner no. 1 and the complainant are agree to stay together.

On behalf of the learned counsel for the State, it has been submitted that there is no objection to the submissions made on behalf of learned counsels for the petitioners and the complainant. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners above named, 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 in connection with Complaint Case No. 121 of 2016 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-XIII, Gopalganj, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T