Anil Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33127 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3020 Year- 2014 Thana -VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Anil Kumar Chaudhary Son of Sri Vishwanath Chaudhary, R/o VillageBelwa Basanta , P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Bandana Kumari @ Bandana Devi W/o Shri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, D/o Ramesh Chaudhary, R/o Village- Bellua Basanta , P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali at present Village- Bari Isshupur, P.S.- Industrial Area Hajipur, District- Vaishli.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-07-2017 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 Complaint Case No.3020 of 2014, Tr. No. 927 of 2016, for the offences instituted under Sections 323, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 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.33127 of 2017 (2) dt.20-07-2017 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 Complaint Case No.3020 of 2014, Tr. No. 927 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., Hajipur, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Sudhir Singh, J) Amit/- U T