Laldeo Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34896 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1315 Year-2023 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.
Laldeo Singh Son of Lala Magho Singh R/O village - Baijnathpur @ Khanpur, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur. 2.
Prema Devi Wife of Laldeo Singh R/O village - Baijnathpur @ Khanpur, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur.
3.
Divya Kumari @ Tarannu @ Kumari Divya Daughter of Laldeo Singh R/O village - Baijnathpur @ Khanpur, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 31-07-2024 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Ahiyarpur P.S. Case No. 1315 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354(b), 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act lodged on 09.10.2023 by the informant, Khushboo Kumari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that in the absence of her husband, the father-in-law and the other accused persons wanted a bike and when she failed to do so, was drove out of the house. Allegation is that the marriage took place in the year 2022 but after recording some
2/4 videos/photos, the father-in-law used to blackmail her. In continuation of that, the allegation is that she was assaulted causing injury on her head as well as the vein was slit and she was shifted to the hospital which followed the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the entire story is fabricated, the lady as also her mother are running a racket in which the innocent boy/family members are trapped, the lady gets married and thereafter keep demanding ransom.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that all the submissions are bereft of any document inasmuch as no such FIR is against either the lady and/or her mother. The further submission is that there is no denial that the son of the petitioner no. 1 is married to the informant, he as such opposes the prayer.
6. Taking into account the allegations that has come against the petitioner no. 1, Laldeo Singh regarding assault, procuring video/photos to blackmail her who is daughter-in-law as also his criminal antecedent, no relief can be granted to him and his anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
7. So far as the petitioner No. 2 (Prema Devi) and petitioner no. 3 (Divya Kumari @ Tarannu @ Kumari Divya) are concerned they are ladies, having no criminal antecedent,
3/4 the only allegation against them is of assault and the injury has been found to be simple in nature, this Court is inclined to grant them privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. Let the petitioner No. 2 (Prema Devi) and petitioner no. 3 (Divya Kumari @ Tarannu @ Kumari Divya) be released on bail in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Muzaffarpur in connection with Ahiyarpur P.S. Case No. 1315 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner No. 2 (Prema Devi) and petitioner no. 3 (Divya Kumari @ Tarannu @ Kumari Divya) who shall provide official document to show their bona fide; (ii) the petitioner No. 2 (Prema Devi) and petitioner no. 3 (Divya Kumari @ Tarannu @ Kumari Divya) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner No. 2 (Prema Devi) and petitioner
4/4 no. 3 (Divya Kumari @ Tarannu @ Kumari Divya) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner No. 2 (Prema Devi) and petitioner no. 3 (Divya Kumari @ Tarannu @ Kumari Divya) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T