Pran Ranjan Prasad Shrivastava v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38043 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -117 Year- 2016 Thana -PAHARPUR DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Pran Ranjan Prasad Shrivastava son of Yogendra Prasad Shrivastava Resident of Village - Kotwa, Police Station - Paharpur, District - East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Kumari Supriya Verma @ Supriya Srivastava wife of Pran Ranjan Prasad Shrivastava, D/o Vijay Verma At present R/o Village - Sathi, P.O. - Dharampur, P.S. - Sathi, Distt. - West Champaran. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sakir Ahmad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05/ 03-02-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, State and the informant-opposite party no.2.

The petitioner being the husband of the informant is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The basic accusation is of torture for nonfulfillment of the dowry demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner admits his marriage with the informant on 27.04.2015 but since immediately after marriage the informant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38043 of 2016 (5) dt.03-02-2017 2/3 was found carrying pregnancy of eight weeks, which gets reflected from the ultrasound report of the informant dated 20.06.2015 as contained in Annexure-3, the petitioner filed Matrimonial Suit No. 182 of 2016 on 21.06.2016 on the ground of cruelty and adultery. It is further submitted that the baby girl of the informant is not of the petitioner. In the circumstances, it is not feasible at present for the petitioner to keep the informant.

Learned counsel for the informant submits that the informant denies the factum of ultrasound report. Both sides are ready to get DNA matching of the child with that of the petitioner and the informant. In the circumstances, both sides agree to appear before the learned court below on 15th of February, 2017 when the learned court below will get the sample drawn and transmitted to some authorized centre for DNA matching of the child. The cost of the DNA matching will be borne by the petitioner.

In the circumstances, let the above named petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail for six months, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38043 of 2016 (5) dt.03-02-2017 3/3 divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Paharpur P.S. Case No. 117 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The provisional bail of the petitioner will be confirmed by the learned court below if the DNA of the child will not match with the petitioner but if the DNA matching report suggests otherwise then the petitioner will surrender and pray for bail.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T