Ranjit Paul @ Ranjit Raut And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.46738 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -679 Year- 2010 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSAMASTIPUR ======================================================
1. Ranjit Paul @ Ranjit Raut, Son of Turant Lal Paul,
2. Turant Lal Paul @ Turant Lal Son of Late Moti Paul, Both the R/o Village- Punma Dharampur, P.S.- Hathauri, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Mahesh Narayan Raut Son of Late Hajari Raut, R/o Village- Chhechhani, P.S.- Bithan, District- Samastipur.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Adv. For the State :Dr. Rabindra Kumar, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 13-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners apprehend arrest in Complaint Case No. 679 C of 2010 instituted for the offence under Section-500 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of D.P. Act.
It is alleged in the written report that the informant fixed the marriage of his daughter with petitioner No. 1 and engagement was also performed with consent of both the parties. The date of marriage was fixed with consent of both parties but finally, marriage could not be solemnised as the accused persons made demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- and motorcycle. The petitioner No. 2 is father of petitioner No. 1. Counsel for the petitioners has mentioned in paragraph-11 of the bail petition, that daughter of the complainant has already been married with Rajnish Kumar @ Rajnish Paul on 19-11-2010 and she is living with her
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46738 of 2017 (2) dt.13-10-2017 2/2 husband and, from their wedlock, two sons were born. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 has appeared and submitted that he wants that petitioners may return articles back to the complainant which he has taken out in their engagement. This court finds that these are the matters of facts which can be settled between the parties outside the court. In such circumstances, prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners named above in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with in Complaint Case No.
679 C of 2010 to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, Samastipur subject to condition as laid down u/S 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. with further conditions (1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason, will automatically cancel bail bond of the petitioner and (3) if petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioners.
(Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T